2 ms·

I don't see that. Sure - popular "computers" are not fully re-programmable, but to say they will go away entirely is probably not true. There will always need t

I don't see that. Sure - popular "computers" are not fully re-programmable, but to say they will go away entirely is probably not true. There will always need to be someone that "makes the magic" and, IMHO, this cannot be done on a locked down device (nevermind the fact that developers wouldn't put up with a computer they couldn't debug). As long as there are folks like you and I that wish to have a computer (as traditionally known) there will be vendors catering to our wishes.

mtgx 14y ago
Just like the idea of making Raspberry Pi for as many children as possible to spur a generation of engineers, the idea that the most popular computers will be closed, will have the exact opposite effect. You don't need open computers to just be available in a tiny corner of the world, and expect big innovations from it. You need them to be available to as many people as possible.
- lotyrin 14y ago
  Agreed. But in the DRM conversation, anyone having one means they can use their digital freedom to bypass DRM, the product of which could be consumed even on the hypothetical majority's closed devices.
bediger4000 14y ago
I agree: someone "makes the magic". But what if it's like hydroponics and gro-lights were during the worst Federal excesses of the "Drug War"? Anyone buying a real computer (not an appliance) needs some kind of licensing and/or certification. Manufacturing real computers requires certified and licensed manufacturing and a different certification/licensing for design? The pace of progress would slow dramatically. Since fewer and fewer people get into programming, we won't have wild and crazy folks who try new and interesting things all the time. No Moxie Marlinspike. No Jeff Bezos. No Marc Andreesen. IT would become like making airplanes, hidebound, rigorously engineered by crank turning second-raters. It would never ever change, except in terms of marketing, like cigarettes. This would be ideal for the status quo, and maybe even for a lot of consumers. It would certainly be ideal for the corporate interests, the few that survive.
- smacktoward 14y ago
  And yet the airlines move a huge volume of people from point A to point B safely, reliably and inexpensively every day, at speeds and scale which would stagger the airline moguls of the 1930s. Does that make airplane nerds like me who think the DC-3 is a good approximation of The Perfect Airplane (rugged, reliable, beautiful) sad? Sure it does. But all those passengers aren't sad. A DC-3 trip from New York to California was a bumpy, sixteen-hour flight with multiple stops for refueling. The same trip on a 757 is a smooth ride above the weather that only takes a few hours and has no stops. And it's cheaper too -- that 1930s trip would have cost more than $4,000 in today's dollars. The 757 ride costs around $550. This is what happens when industries mature: they become safer, cheaper, and boring.
  - bediger4000 14y ago
    You say "mature", I say "reached the limits of efficient flight in 1963" (http://www.empiricalzeal.com/2012/10/12/can-we-build-a-more-efficient-airplane-not-really-says-physics/ http://www.empiricalzeal.com/2012/10/12/can-we-build-a-more-...). We're nowhere near what we can do with computing, but we are with airplanes. Safe, cheaper and boring may be an artifact of the physics of flight in Earth's atmosphere, combined with an intertwined US defense and aerospace industry. Why should we let corporate and government interests "unring" the general computing bell? Why should we let corporate and government interests stuff the genie of democratic publishing back in the lamp? General purpose computing hardware got super cheap by way of the mass market, and mass production. General purpose programming got cheap and universally available by way of mass communication. In 1983 a C compiler on VMS cost some thousands of dollars. Today, GCC and Clang and Pcc are free, and they do optimizations that Tartan Labs could only dream about. That's a hugely different path than the carefully-cultivated air travel industry took. I think you're underestimating the effects of the FAA and the DoD on how air travel looks today.
  - kragen 14y ago
    > But all those passengers aren't sad. Have you looked at passengers on airplanes lately? I admit it's been a few years for me, but last I saw, airline passengers were, by and large, miserable. They can't wait to get off the airplane. They may prefer current air travel to not seeing their family or getting paid an order of magnitude less, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be happier with it if it were better. And it could be a lot better.

mtgx 14y ago

Just like the idea of making Raspberry Pi for as many children as possible to spur a generation of engineers, the idea that the most popular computers will be closed, will have the exact opposite effect. You don't need open computers to just be available in a tiny corner of the world, and expect big innovations from it. You need them to be available to as many people as possible.

lotyrin 14y ago
Agreed. But in the DRM conversation, anyone having one means they can use their digital freedom to bypass DRM, the product of which could be consumed even on the hypothetical majority's closed devices.

bediger4000 14y ago

I agree: someone "makes the magic". But what if it's like hydroponics and gro-lights were during the worst Federal excesses of the "Drug War"? Anyone buying a real computer (not an appliance) needs some kind of licensing and/or certification. Manufacturing real computers requires certified and licensed manufacturing and a different certification/licensing for design? The pace of progress would slow dramatically. Since fewer and fewer people get into programming, we won't have wild and crazy folks who try new and interesting things all the time. No Moxie Marlinspike. No Jeff Bezos. No Marc Andreesen. IT would become like making airplanes, hidebound, rigorously engineered by crank turning second-raters. It would never ever change, except in terms of marketing, like cigarettes. This would be ideal for the status quo, and maybe even for a lot of consumers. It would certainly be ideal for the corporate interests, the few that survive.

smacktoward 14y ago
And yet the airlines move a huge volume of people from point A to point B safely, reliably and inexpensively every day, at speeds and scale which would stagger the airline moguls of the 1930s. Does that make airplane nerds like me who think the DC-3 is a good approximation of The Perfect Airplane (rugged, reliable, beautiful) sad? Sure it does. But all those passengers aren't sad. A DC-3 trip from New York to California was a bumpy, sixteen-hour flight with multiple stops for refueling. The same trip on a 757 is a smooth ride above the weather that only takes a few hours and has no stops. And it's cheaper too -- that 1930s trip would have cost more than $4,000 in today's dollars. The 757 ride costs around $550. This is what happens when industries mature: they become safer, cheaper, and boring.
- bediger4000 14y ago
  You say "mature", I say "reached the limits of efficient flight in 1963" (http://www.empiricalzeal.com/2012/10/12/can-we-build-a-more-efficient-airplane-not-really-says-physics/ http://www.empiricalzeal.com/2012/10/12/can-we-build-a-more-...). We're nowhere near what we can do with computing, but we are with airplanes. Safe, cheaper and boring may be an artifact of the physics of flight in Earth's atmosphere, combined with an intertwined US defense and aerospace industry. Why should we let corporate and government interests "unring" the general computing bell? Why should we let corporate and government interests stuff the genie of democratic publishing back in the lamp? General purpose computing hardware got super cheap by way of the mass market, and mass production. General purpose programming got cheap and universally available by way of mass communication. In 1983 a C compiler on VMS cost some thousands of dollars. Today, GCC and Clang and Pcc are free, and they do optimizations that Tartan Labs could only dream about. That's a hugely different path than the carefully-cultivated air travel industry took. I think you're underestimating the effects of the FAA and the DoD on how air travel looks today.
- kragen 14y ago
  > But all those passengers aren't sad. Have you looked at passengers on airplanes lately? I admit it's been a few years for me, but last I saw, airline passengers were, by and large, miserable. They can't wait to get off the airplane. They may prefer current air travel to not seeing their family or getting paid an order of magnitude less, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be happier with it if it were better. And it could be a lot better.