3 ms·

> This is the new normal. The connector is the valuable part. Right, and I read this as "the connector is the next thing to go". Someday (one hopes) all of thi

by Cushman 14y ago

> This is the new normal. The connector is the valuable part. Right, and I read this as "the connector is the next thing to go". Someday (one hopes) all of this will be done by software radio, anything that needs to be really fast will be over a generic optical interconnect, and the idea of buying a particular computer because it has a bit of copper that mates with your particular display will be humorously antiquated... like steam engines, or cursive handwriting.

rsync 14y ago
I don't think so ... it's going to be infinitely recursive in terms of "middle or connecting pieces that are the new bottleneck". Some vested interest or IP complication will reassert itself into the same chokepoint as soon as (insert your future state here) comes true...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Cushman 14y ago
  There's an active and competitive market for, say, CPU architectures that end users are completely (and gladly) unaware of. I just see the walls of the black box expanding, that doesn't mean there's nothing going on inside.
cwp 14y ago
We're seeing the beginnings of this with Apple's lightning connector. It's designed to be as flexible as possible, to the point where the AV cable that attaches to it has an ARM chip in it and runs (a very stripped down) OS X. By moving smarts out of the computer's port and into the cable, they make the port as simple and generic as possible. I completely disagree on cursive handwritng though. I use that every day.
- rednukleus 14y ago
  Im not sure if your comment was meant to be satirical, but you just pointed out the big danger in the impending move to wireless connections. > the idea of buying a particular computer because it has a bit of copper that mates with your particular display will be humorously antiquated Is the next stage going to be everything playing nicely with eachother as it should, or are we going to get a range of proprietary wireless standards that won't work with each other in the name of squeezing a few more dollars out of users?
  - Cushman 14y ago
    Assuming you meant this to me? See my other comment about architectures. What you're describing sounds like Macintosh with PowerPC; was it ever an advantage? Maybe, but then it became a liability, and they switched. It hasn't exactly gone bad. I'm sure there will be growing pains, but users will place such a high premium on systems that work together that it will have to happen at a software level even if there's differing technology under the hood.

by Cushman 14y ago

rsync 14y ago

I don't think so ... it's going to be infinitely recursive in terms of "middle or connecting pieces that are the new bottleneck". Some vested interest or IP complication will reassert itself into the same chokepoint as soon as (insert your future state here) comes true...

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Cushman 14y ago
There's an active and competitive market for, say, CPU architectures that end users are completely (and gladly) unaware of. I just see the walls of the black box expanding, that doesn't mean there's nothing going on inside.

cwp 14y ago

We're seeing the beginnings of this with Apple's lightning connector. It's designed to be as flexible as possible, to the point where the AV cable that attaches to it has an ARM chip in it and runs (a very stripped down) OS X. By moving smarts out of the computer's port and into the cable, they make the port as simple and generic as possible. I completely disagree on cursive handwritng though. I use that every day.

rednukleus 14y ago
Im not sure if your comment was meant to be satirical, but you just pointed out the big danger in the impending move to wireless connections. > the idea of buying a particular computer because it has a bit of copper that mates with your particular display will be humorously antiquated Is the next stage going to be everything playing nicely with eachother as it should, or are we going to get a range of proprietary wireless standards that won't work with each other in the name of squeezing a few more dollars out of users?
- Cushman 14y ago
  Assuming you meant this to me? See my other comment about architectures. What you're describing sounds like Macintosh with PowerPC; was it ever an advantage? Maybe, but then it became a liability, and they switched. It hasn't exactly gone bad. I'm sure there will be growing pains, but users will place such a high premium on systems that work together that it will have to happen at a software level even if there's differing technology under the hood.