10 ms·

The power/electricity analogy here is what's really key - there will come a time when the ubiquity of being "online" will be the same as the ubiquity of "the po

The power/electricity analogy here is what's really key - there will come a time when the ubiquity of being "online" will be the same as the ubiquity of "the power is on." It's so prevalent in modern society we really don't think about it. It took me a while to realize that this is where Google is headed with ChromeOS/Chromebooks. Ultimately, "applications/apps" will not exist, there will just be the web and all personal computing devices become thin clients. What to use photoshop? great, go to //photoshop.adobe (or something); Office? //office.microsoft; play the latest COD? //callofduty.activision. [EDIT: also note the importance of search in this scenario...] I think google's bet is that just like CompUSA and other computer retail outlets have died, so too will "app stores" that sell digital equivalents of physical boxed apps. All apps will become services available openly on the web. It's definitely exciting, though I realize it makes a lot of people scared and there are definitely security risks that need to be kept in mind. But overall I see it as another step in the democratization of access and knowledge. A few hundred years ago, only the privileged had access to resources enabling them to read and write and create things. A few years ago, only those with some serious cash could (legally) purchase a license to operate a copy of Adobe's products. Now, any kid with 100 bucks and a decent laptop can spend 3 months with the entire Adobe catalog available to them. Pretty soon, that "high-powered" hardware requirement will be gone and the market opens up even further and pricing will drop even more. That's pretty awesome.

na85 12y ago
Kids in the first world having access to mobile broadband at speeds and prices that make Photoshop-as-a-service feasible on their chromebooks is explicitly not awesome unless you're one of those privileged kids. This is a "rich get richer" situation that is developing. The problem with the centralized model is that it rather fucks over even people in developing or under-developed countries, and also places like, say, South Africa where broadband speeds are internally decent but are notoriously slow to the rest of the planet.
- dkokelley 12y ago
  I don't see how lowering the barrier to entry (access to tech) has any impact on the "rich getting richer".
  - na85 12y ago
    Do you not understand analogies or something?
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    If I understand na85 correctly, they are suggesting that the terminal model of chrome books requires decent internet and thus increases the barrier to entry. I agree with you that Chromebooks lower the barrier to entry because hardware cost is too big of a factor (and many things still work offline).
    - danieldk 12y ago
      And there are other barriers (I actually think the bandwidth problem is solvable, by caching large parts of the program). Before SaaS, a poor kid from Egypt could (although it's illegal) get a pirated copy of Photoshop, Office or Visual Studio and improve their skills with modest means. Now they need software subscriptions that they can't afford. I can see two things happening: it increases the popularity of FLOSS software in such countries and/or companies will adjust the monthly subscription fee to be proportional to e.g. the median income. Anyway, I think thinks can be said for both models. Regardless my worries about SaaS, I also like always having the latest version, not having to install and maintain programs, etc.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  And not all of us have super-reliable constantly-available mobile broadband. Here in Aberdeen, when I walk down the street, it varies from HSDPA to GPRS. There's occasionally University WiFi, but that only helps if I'm near a University building. This access is far from constant or consistently speedy.
- dannyr 12y ago
  I bet this argument has been used on the early days of dial-up modem and cell phones as well. History proved that these things get cheaper and become accessible to the masses.
- astrocat 12y ago
  ok... so kids in the first world have mobile broadband and can sit on a bench in central park and photoshop away on their fancy chromebook pixel. Meanwhile, kids in Egypt who don't have mobile broadband sit at a desk in an internet cafe and photoshop away on their cheap chromebook. I don't see what the problem is?
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    The internet cafe would still be slow, and not being able to work from home is worse that their current situation.
anon1385 12y ago
It's not awesome at all. It's the death of personal computing. What to use Photoshop? Pay a perpetual monthly fee forever, with no control over which version of the software you are using. Adobe jacked up the price this year for the new version despite a lack of new features? Tough, nothing you can do about it. It's either pay up or lose access. The new version is buggy? Tough luck. Want to modify any of the software on your computer in any way or install any local software? That disables the trusted DRM and none of your remote apps will load anymore because your machine is no longer trusted. (We already have this on Chromebooks for DRM video). Want to cancel your Microsoft Office subscription? Fine, now you've lost the ability to view any of your documents any more. Want to continue using SuperAwesomeApp? Too bad, they just shut down the servers forever. Sorry, no refunds. All your files hosted in the cloud and data mined for terrorist terms, for your safety of course. All your files hosted in the cloud and data mined to build marketing profiles. Every piece of software having the ultimate in user lock-in - total control over the users data. I find it hard to imagine a more dystopian future for software.
- astrocat 12y ago
  I dunno... all of this sounds like fearmongering and some of these things are perfectly analogous to the way stuff already works. For example: "Want to continue using SuperAwesomeApp? Too bad..." Want to continue using TwitPic? Too bad. Obsolescence happens, companies shut down, products go off the market and cease to be supported every day. This isn't new. If there's enough demand for an alternative, it will happen. Where there's a market, there will be product. Or: "It's either pay up or lose access." When I stop paying my gym membership I loose access. Nobody complains that "it's either pay up or get fat." Photoshop used to be a product, now its a service. This isn't an "injustice" it's normal business. Data safety in the cloud though is a reasonable concern. You don't know what's going on with your data on remote servers. But then, most people don't know what's going on with their data on their own machines. We've found ways to implement safety and security on our local machines (monitor for malware etc...), I imagine we will eventually find ways to ensure it on remote machines as well. Maybe.
  - marknow 12y ago
seagreen 12y ago
"There is no “Cloud”: There are only Other People’s Hard Drives." -- http://www.loper-os.org/?p=44 http://www.loper-os.org/?p=44 Having no local state is a wonderful vision. I see why that makes you excited, but "the cloud" is the death of programmatic computing. What we should move towards is personal servers, either physical machines or (for 98% of the population) some kind of "gmail for servers" like https://sandstorm.io/ https://sandstorm.io/.
josteink 12y ago
> Ultimately, "applications/apps" will not exist, there will just be the web Except this isn't the web at all, this is some closed Google-only internet. This isn't the death of personal computing, this is the death of the web. It should be pretty clear by now to most techies that Chrome* is the neoMSIE. We should stop applauding these complete violations of web standards. This is the opposite of awesome. The direction the web is heading these days literally makes me sad: less open, less standards-based, less cross platform. Everything which made the web a good thing in the first place is being driven away by.
- jenscow 12y ago
  How is this "Google-only", and how are they completely violating web standards? Also, what exactly makes Chrome the "neoMSIE"?
m_mueller 12y ago
Here's the problem with the power analogy: While you can replace power with batteries to truly get it everywhere, being online truly everywhere with a high enough bandwidth to work (consistent >= 3 MBit) is still a long way out. Overbooked base stations, airplanes, train lines with tunnels, inconsistent coverage - these are all hard problems to solve and it will take at least another 10 years to get there. Until then, I hope that your vision doesn't become true too soon, because it would mean a loss of mobility compared to what we have now.
zarkov99 12y ago
I am not sure it is that awesome. You get a closed platform that only runs what hosting companies decide is worth supporting. What is this going to do for niche open source apps?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

na85 12y ago

Kids in the first world having access to mobile broadband at speeds and prices that make Photoshop-as-a-service feasible on their chromebooks is explicitly not awesome unless you're one of those privileged kids. This is a "rich get richer" situation that is developing. The problem with the centralized model is that it rather fucks over even people in developing or under-developed countries, and also places like, say, South Africa where broadband speeds are internally decent but are notoriously slow to the rest of the planet.

dkokelley 12y ago
I don't see how lowering the barrier to entry (access to tech) has any impact on the "rich getting richer".
- na85 12y ago
  Do you not understand analogies or something?
- seanflyon 12y ago
  If I understand na85 correctly, they are suggesting that the terminal model of chrome books requires decent internet and thus increases the barrier to entry. I agree with you that Chromebooks lower the barrier to entry because hardware cost is too big of a factor (and many things still work offline).
  - danieldk 12y ago
    And there are other barriers (I actually think the bandwidth problem is solvable, by caching large parts of the program). Before SaaS, a poor kid from Egypt could (although it's illegal) get a pirated copy of Photoshop, Office or Visual Studio and improve their skills with modest means. Now they need software subscriptions that they can't afford. I can see two things happening: it increases the popularity of FLOSS software in such countries and/or companies will adjust the monthly subscription fee to be proportional to e.g. the median income. Anyway, I think thinks can be said for both models. Regardless my worries about SaaS, I also like always having the latest version, not having to install and maintain programs, etc.
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
And not all of us have super-reliable constantly-available mobile broadband. Here in Aberdeen, when I walk down the street, it varies from HSDPA to GPRS. There's occasionally University WiFi, but that only helps if I'm near a University building. This access is far from constant or consistently speedy.
dannyr 12y ago
I bet this argument has been used on the early days of dial-up modem and cell phones as well. History proved that these things get cheaper and become accessible to the masses.
astrocat 12y ago
ok... so kids in the first world have mobile broadband and can sit on a bench in central park and photoshop away on their fancy chromebook pixel. Meanwhile, kids in Egypt who don't have mobile broadband sit at a desk in an internet cafe and photoshop away on their cheap chromebook. I don't see what the problem is?
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  The internet cafe would still be slow, and not being able to work from home is worse that their current situation.

anon1385 12y ago

It's not awesome at all. It's the death of personal computing. What to use Photoshop? Pay a perpetual monthly fee forever, with no control over which version of the software you are using. Adobe jacked up the price this year for the new version despite a lack of new features? Tough, nothing you can do about it. It's either pay up or lose access. The new version is buggy? Tough luck. Want to modify any of the software on your computer in any way or install any local software? That disables the trusted DRM and none of your remote apps will load anymore because your machine is no longer trusted. (We already have this on Chromebooks for DRM video). Want to cancel your Microsoft Office subscription? Fine, now you've lost the ability to view any of your documents any more. Want to continue using SuperAwesomeApp? Too bad, they just shut down the servers forever. Sorry, no refunds. All your files hosted in the cloud and data mined for terrorist terms, for your safety of course. All your files hosted in the cloud and data mined to build marketing profiles. Every piece of software having the ultimate in user lock-in - total control over the users data. I find it hard to imagine a more dystopian future for software.

astrocat 12y ago
I dunno... all of this sounds like fearmongering and some of these things are perfectly analogous to the way stuff already works. For example: "Want to continue using SuperAwesomeApp? Too bad..." Want to continue using TwitPic? Too bad. Obsolescence happens, companies shut down, products go off the market and cease to be supported every day. This isn't new. If there's enough demand for an alternative, it will happen. Where there's a market, there will be product. Or: "It's either pay up or lose access." When I stop paying my gym membership I loose access. Nobody complains that "it's either pay up or get fat." Photoshop used to be a product, now its a service. This isn't an "injustice" it's normal business. Data safety in the cloud though is a reasonable concern. You don't know what's going on with your data on remote servers. But then, most people don't know what's going on with their data on their own machines. We've found ways to implement safety and security on our local machines (monitor for malware etc...), I imagine we will eventually find ways to ensure it on remote machines as well. Maybe.
- marknow 12y ago

seagreen 12y ago

"There is no “Cloud”: There are only Other People’s Hard Drives." -- http://www.loper-os.org/?p=44 http://www.loper-os.org/?p=44 Having no local state is a wonderful vision. I see why that makes you excited, but "the cloud" is the death of programmatic computing. What we should move towards is personal servers, either physical machines or (for 98% of the population) some kind of "gmail for servers" like https://sandstorm.io/ https://sandstorm.io/.

josteink 12y ago

> Ultimately, "applications/apps" will not exist, there will just be the web Except this isn't the web at all, this is some closed Google-only internet. This isn't the death of personal computing, this is the death of the web. It should be pretty clear by now to most techies that Chrome* is the neoMSIE. We should stop applauding these complete violations of web standards. This is the opposite of awesome. The direction the web is heading these days literally makes me sad: less open, less standards-based, less cross platform. Everything which made the web a good thing in the first place is being driven away by.

jenscow 12y ago
How is this "Google-only", and how are they completely violating web standards? Also, what exactly makes Chrome the "neoMSIE"?

m_mueller 12y ago

Here's the problem with the power analogy: While you can replace power with batteries to truly get it everywhere, being online truly everywhere with a high enough bandwidth to work (consistent >= 3 MBit) is still a long way out. Overbooked base stations, airplanes, train lines with tunnels, inconsistent coverage - these are all hard problems to solve and it will take at least another 10 years to get there. Until then, I hope that your vision doesn't become true too soon, because it would mean a loss of mobility compared to what we have now.

zarkov99 12y ago

I am not sure it is that awesome. You get a closed platform that only runs what hosting companies decide is worth supporting. What is this going to do for niche open source apps?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]