I would not want to second guess what things will be like in the computing future. I remember when this was the slickest thing ever. Even more interesting, the picture implies someone is still able to use it here in good ol' 2009.
It makes more sense as, "why carry something around when you don't need to?"
I get where you're coming from but it assumes a ubiquitous computer presence, which I can't see being feasible. There was a demo recently of something along these lines though.
There was a giant multi-touch wall and people just wear an RFID card and the computer knows who you are - you'd just walk up to a random computer wall and start working.
But these machines won't be literally everywhere and there are things people need everywhere - music, directions, the ability to take pictures/video, the ability to communicate, being able to access various online services and other entertainment (movies, games). To satisfy these needs, portable electronics will always be required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
But they just won't completely replace stationary computers. I'm baffled that anyone would claim otherwise.
Ok but given that portability is an advantage for servicing (e.g. easier to take a laptop to the Apple Store than a Mac Pro), purchasing online and resale, stationary machines have to offer something more than portable machines to make up for that inconvenience.
Right now, it's performance. Some will say upgrades too but really that's performance/capacity related. Computers haven't satisfied all of our needs. They've satisfied a lot of them, which is why the sales of stationary machines are dropping fast because that performance benefit doesn't outweigh the advantage of portability for a lot of people.
I think ultimately it comes down to whether or not people assume computers won't need to be faster or have larger capacity. I strongly believe that personal computers won't need to be faster than a certain point and I don't think we're all that far away from that point. That being the case, I just don't see what advantage a machine that is only stationary will offer.
There could be machines that do not require portability but I look at my portable iphone next to my Mini and I think, when the iphone is that fast and I can take it with me, what need is there for manufacturers to make stationary machines? Performance and cost for now but what happens when those factors don't matter?
Give the iphone 3 iterations and you'd be up to quad core 1GHz, 2GB Ram, 250GB space and a PowerVR that could match the 9400M. It's perfectly possible to have your iphone as your desktop computer in 3 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42
I would not want to second guess what things will be like in the computing future
I found it interesting when someone bumped an old thread about optical drives a while back and I noticed an old post where I had written that optical drives were an absolute necessity in a computer. These days, my opinion on that has changed completely seeing how people use software and media content.
The best we can do in the present is look at what we'd all like to be doing in the future and try to assess what goals will make that happen. That goal as judged from the present is not likely to be a common one but in the future it will be and determining what that is makes people/companies successful. Sometimes it's not determining what it is but defining it and pushing people down that route.
The goal for me would be that everyone has an iphone-style device as their personal computer and there are just as many types of displays and input devices to interact with your own device and they charge up wirelessly when you sit them on your work surfaces at home. You never have to purposely sit at a computer, the computer will be with you wherever you want to sit and media is served over always-on always-connected networks.
When used in conjunction with a larger stationary screen, wouldn't that larger stationary screen also require processing capabilities in order to interface with the iPhone and peripherals? Once that's the case, why not just make those devices fully capable without requiring an extra box?
But yeah, I agree with your vision of how those devices will be used. I just don't agree that this will be the only model for computer usage.
Relying entirely on a pocket computer is not the most robust and flexible computing paradigm. The pocket computer could be stolen, lost, physically damaged, or corrupt. When people sit down at their big computing screen at home, it needs to work no matter what. Relying on entirely on portable devices introduces all kinds of potential problems.
I find it far more likely that both our portable computers and our stationary computers will rely on network based storage and processing power. Certainly caching will be used to ensure functionality whenever out of network range. But to put it all on the device in one's pocket is just asking for trouble.
The goal for me would be that everyone has an iphone-style device as their personal computer and there are just as many types of displays and input devices to interact with...
And to reply to one point in particular...
The goal isn't a form factor, but instead to make computer usage more productive, convenient, and entertaining. The goal should define the form factor, not the other way around.
Edit:
Most of the rest of your post deals with performance. If you look back at what I've been describing as the reasons why stationary computing is desirable, you'll notice that performance has hardly come up at all. Screen size, ergonomics, reliability, not having to carry something around... etc.
In my opinion, performance will always matter for some scenarios. But the case for stationary computing doesn't revolve around performance so I'll refrain from going into that debatable subject.
When used in conjunction with a larger stationary screen, wouldn't that larger stationary screen also require processing capabilities in order to interface with the iPhone and peripherals? Once that's the case, why not just make those devices fully capable without requiring an extra box?
The display would just receive the video and control signals from your device. On the point about reliability and the extra box, assume that (like the iMac) this computing part is fixed somewhere in the back of your 60" TV device and it breaks. What do you do? Find a way to transport your entire 60" display unit to fix components that fit into your hand and have to make do without the display until it's fixed.
Or, do you simply use another portable device in the short term and take back the broken one at your convenience? It's true that these devices don't have to be portable in the sense of usable on the move - they can be external, static and just really small like the Apple TV box and just sync to mobile devices but right now, an ipod touch can do what an ATV can do processing-wise. It just needs more storage and a display connection. I know which one I'd rather have sitting next to my razor thin TV unit. Storage will be a limitation but the TV can have its own.
When a device can do that, there is little reason not to make it usable on the move too, especially if the cost is low. Same deal with putting displays on routers. It's not necessary usually but if you can for a cheap enough price, why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
If you look back at what I've been describing as the reasons why stationary computing is desirable, you'll notice that performance has hardly come up at all. Screen size, ergonomics, reliability, not having to carry something around... etc.
Screen size and ergonomics don't matter so much for the device itself. If you sit a mobile device next to a 60" TV and it pulls content from it, you aren't having strain from using it and you aren't limited by its screen size.
I don't find portable devices to be less reliable generally. My iphone is on 24/7 and doesn't hang or crash, same as the various desktops I use. If anything, mobile parts are more reliable as they are built to handle higher temperatures and they draw less power.
I obviously can't say in absolute terms that these events will come about, only time will tell what happens. I just think it's possible and it's what I'd like to happen.
A lot of logical contortion seems needed to support the claim that 100% of computers will be battery powered and portable.
Predicting 100% reliance on a sole variation of anything seems rather foolish. For instance, cars don't comprise 100% of our transportation. The prediction that every computer will be portable seems analogous to someone in the Model-T era predicting that all travel will be accomplished by automobile.
Another analogy; Radios have long been portable and battery powered. But yet we have stationary units everywhere. (A car head-unit is considered stationary right? ) Computers are, and will continue to be, the same way.
A lot of logical contortion seems needed to support the claim that 100% of computers will be battery powered and portable.
It may not be 100% but as close as needed, people will always use whatever suits the needs best but right now it's 80:20 in favor of portables sales-wise. You could say that there are VHS and BetaMax players still in use but I'm sure that people would generally agree that digital PVR and DVD players have taken over that role. In 10 years, the needs of the 20% static machine buyers will gradually be met by smaller and smaller machines and smallness implies portability.
I don't think it's possible to say for certain that static machines will always be around. We've only been using computers for a few decades. In another 20-30 years, computers could be vastly different from what we have now, not just smaller.
As sales of static machines erode, the prices can't be as low so you find that even today, a portable machine costs around about the same as a desktop. Dell's lowest Core 2 Duo laptop is £400 and their Core 2 Duo desktop with no display is £400 the latter is just a bit faster. The iMacs match the laptops price/performance.
The question is, if a static machine is the same speed and the same price as a portable one, why buy the static one? They're not more reliable, they won't be cheaper, they won't be faster and they have the same ergonomics if you use the same input devices. Why buy the portable one? It's portable. Even if you don't need portability, it's not a bad feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
For instance, cars don't comprise 100% of our transportation.
That's because one vehicle doesn't work for all types of travel - can't fly or sail in a car, computers all do the same thing though. They all process data, from the digital wrist watch to the supercomputer, it's all binary data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Another analogy; Radios have long been portable and battery powered. But yet we have stationary units everywhere. (A car head-unit is considered stationary right? ) Computers are, and will continue to be, the same way.
You guys still use built-in car radios? This isn't 2001. I plug my ipod directly into the stereo unit. I don't need the unit itself, just the speakers.
The problem with the built-in setup is what happens when you need to get out the car but you haven't finished listening to your content? Future technology should remove the barriers. Look at the mobile phone industry. Remember when they started out, the signals weren't so good and people would say how much easier it was just to use a static landline.
People still use landlines despite the ubiquity of mobile phones, they haven't gone anywhere yet. But how much do you use one or the other? My mobile usage exceeds my landline usage these days. The main reasons I have a landline at all is that it comes with the broadband provider, service accounts often require a landline number and the calls are cheaper.
For my landline to connect, the road was dug up and it took 2 weeks and when I move house, I have to go through the whole thing again. During the installation time, I used my mobile phone to get online and communicate.
The other reason I see more usage of mobile devices is that connection to you individually. If you call a landline, you get a secretary or some other member of staff or family instead of who you want. A mobile device is direct to you and you personalize your device. You personalize your media preferences, your caller lists, your apps.
It may not be 100% but as close as needed, people will always use whatever suits the needs best but right now it's 80:20 in favor of portables sales-wise. You could say that there are VHS and BetaMax players still in use but I'm sure that people would generally agree that digital PVR and DVD players have taken over that role. In 10 years, the needs of the 20% static machine buyers will gradually be met by smaller and smaller machines and smallness implies portability.
That's a horrible analogy. It implies that portable computers are a next-gen technology as compared to stationary computers. This is false. Both have scenarios in which they are superior
Quote:
I don't think it's possible to say for certain that static machines will always be around. We've only been using computers for a few decades. In another 20-30 years, computers could be vastly different from what we have now, not just smaller.
As sales of static machines erode, the prices can't be as low so you find that even today, a portable machine costs around about the same as a desktop. Dell's lowest Core 2 Duo laptop is £400 and their Core 2 Duo desktop with no display is £400 the latter is just a bit faster. The iMacs match the laptops price/performance.
The question is, if a static machine is the same speed and the same price as a portable one, why buy the static one? They're not more reliable, they won't be cheaper, they won't be faster and they have the same ergonomics if you use the same input devices. Why buy the portable one? It's portable. Even if you don't need portability, it's not a bad feature.
Static seems like the wrong word to use.
You ask why not a portable computer? For one thing, batteries cost money. Disposal is also becoming a huge issue. It is illegal to throw batteries in the trash in many nations. Recently, while qualifying one of our products for sale in Europe, all kinds of regulations had to be met with regard to battery chemistry and disposal contingencies.
The trend toward green server rooms means fewer batteries, not a battery in every single device. Should things like network switches be battery powered? Just about all of our rack mount server room gear is a computer nowadays. They've got peripheral ports and incredibly complex operating systems, including text and graphical interfaces.
Quote:
You guys still use built-in car radios? This isn't 2001. I plug my ipod directly into the stereo unit. I don't need the unit itself, just the speakers.
Yes, some people like to hear music they've never heard before, live news, traffic reports, and weather (to name a few). Hopefully that comment was in jest. If not, it would seem to suggest a blindness to usage other than one's own.
Quote:
The problem with the built-in setup is what happens when you need to get out the car but you haven't finished listening to your content? Future technology should remove the barriers. Look at the mobile phone industry. Remember when they started out, the signals weren't so good and people would say how much easier it was just to use a static landline.
Seriously? Media playback bookmarks don't require a computer in your pocket. The internet works just fine for that. Right now, as a stop-gap measure, it is necessary to carry around a computer in your pocket. This won't always be the case.
For instance. I use netflix streaming. No matter which computer i'm at, the environment is familiar and playback begins from where I last left off. Thank god it doesn't require me to carry around a computer.
Landlines are still heavily relied upon. There are many environments in which wireless devices are impossible to use. I work in just such a building. The forges used in manufacturing our microscopic pipettes throw off absolutely huge amount of stray RF. Combined with the metal building, phone reception is unreliable.
Landlines also facilitate calling a location instead of a person. Frequently I need to call a room, not a person.
Finally, many companies prohibit mobile phones in controlled areas. This typically has to do with security. Ever since cameras started appearing on phones, thousands of companies and government agencies banned mobile phones in the workplace.
Quote:
The other reason I see more usage of mobile devices is that connection to you individually. If you call a landline, you get a secretary or some other member of staff or family instead of who you want. A mobile device is direct to you and you personalize your device. You personalize your media preferences, your caller lists, your apps.
There's no argument about mobile devices being useful. I'm just taking issue with your assertion that stationary computers will entirely disappear.
Are you really claiming a mobile computer is necessary to have a customized computing environment? Funny, I log into perhaps a hundred different websites from different computers. Yet they all have my custom settings.
And now to further present my case rather than just rebutting yours...
Why a stationary computer? More reasons off of the top of my head...
* No battery to buy or dispose of.
* Casing. Portable devices are constructed to be easily carried. Stationary devices are designed around other criteria. Easy stackability. A shape that hides behind or attaches to other devices. Asthetics, something that looks good in your pocket doesn't necessarily look good in your living room. Durability; some environments are better served by putting the device out of harms way.
* No need to carry a box around in order to use a computer. If one is already in the room, go ahead and use it. It will still have your custom computing environment.
Damn... I've got to leave to meet people, but would otherwise continue this post.
But you know what. I can continue this post at home or wherever I want... even though it is being typed on a stationary computer.
Just one final thought. I envision the internet providing us with a custom computing environment wherever we go, not the box in our pocket. The box in our pocket can be lost, stolen, or damaged. Relying on it entirely is a bad idea.
Original post above. My guess is this stat is sorta slanted. Most people probably have their desktop computer by now. Netbooks are probably a pretty decent part of this statistic. I think the key word is now. Notebooks now make up 80% of consumer US computer sales. The statistic I'd actually like to see is how many desktops there are out there, and how many non-desktops. Probably a very hard piece of data to collect. Just like some people only use a wireless phone, it isn't for everyone. There is nothing good about a notebook or netbook for me. The trackpad alone would drive me nuts. And that would not take long, trust me. Having a true all-in-one configuration is not cool for all of us. Having a fixed distance between me and the screen, is not exactly a good thing. So ... Marvin is right that things will change. dfiler is right in that it will take a while. Hopefully, a long while. I am still angry over the switch to digital, both audio and video. Compression, when abused, ruins everything.
Original post above. My guess is this stat is sorta slanted. Most people probably have their desktop computer by now. Netbooks are probably a pretty decent part of this statistic. I think the key word is now. Notebooks now make up 80% of consumer US computer sales. The statistic I'd actually like to see is how many desktops there are out there,
The title of this thread is "Desktop computer steep sales decline"
The title of this thread is "Desktop computer steep sales decline"
My point, and I do have one, is statistics can be slanted depending on how you look at them. If desktop sales are down, while portable computers are up, gee, that could be interpreted as a decline for the desktop. Oh well, as long as desktop computers are for sale, I will own them.
How is this slanted? To say 80% of the computers sold to consumers in the US are notebooks. There is no way to slant that, its either true or not.
There are hundreds of millions of desktop computers in the market right now. But that doesn't matter because no one cares about what was sold two years ago. They only care about what they can sell today and tomorrow. The shift is clearly towards portable machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42
Original post above. My guess is this stat is sorta slanted. Most people probably have their desktop computer by now. Netbooks are probably a pretty decent part of this statistic. I think the key word is now. Notebooks now make up 80% of consumer US computer sales. The statistic I'd actually like to see is how many desktops there are out there, and how many non-desktops. Probably a very hard piece of data to collect. Just like some people only use a wireless phone, it isn't for everyone. There is nothing good about a notebook or netbook for me. The trackpad alone would drive me nuts. And that would not take long, trust me. Having a true all-in-one configuration is not cool for all of us. Having a fixed distance between me and the screen, is not exactly a good thing. So ... Marvin is right that things will change. dfiler is right in that it will take a while. Hopefully, a long while. I am still angry over the switch to digital, both audio and video. Compression, when abused, ruins everything.
Desktop sales being down isn't one time anomaly. Desktop sales are going down and won't ever come back up, its a long term trend. The point and purpose of the statistic is to show a long term trend that will not reverse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42
My point, and I do have one, is statistics can be slanted depending on how you look at them. If desktop sales are down, while portable computers are up, gee, that could be interpreted as a decline for the desktop. Oh well, as long as desktop computers are for sale, I will own them.
You ask why not a portable computer? For one thing, batteries...
I agree that batteries need to be improved considerably but there's always a possibility that some of the tech available in labs could reach the market in a few years. I'm holding out for controlled nuclear fusion mini-reactors that last 100 years = 100% clean energy for all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
The trend toward green server rooms means fewer batteries, not a battery in every single device. Should things like network switches be battery powered? Just about all of our rack mount server room gear is a computer nowadays.
Server and Enterprise hardware can take a different route but the reason that 'a battery in every device' sounds like a bad idea is because of the number of devices we see today - I agree that a large number of batteries isn't good when there's a more efficient way. But will we need the same amount of servers or more in 10 years that we do today or 1/10th the amount?
Hosting companies see a lot of redundancy in server hardware where a lot of machines are under-used and to cut costs, they can virtualize machines on a single server and drop the prices considerably.
Naturally the population grows so more resources are required and it may be the case that we all move to a server- and network-centric model. I personally don't want my data online where it can be stolen or lost by a hosting company trainee and I don't want to be disconnected from that data through a network malfunction or signal loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Yes, some people like to hear music they've never heard before, live news, traffic reports, and weather
This can be streamed to a portable too. The iphone has radio apps. Spotify for the iphone will let you listen to a whole catalog of streaming music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Seriously? Media playback bookmarks don't require a computer in your pocket.
I guess you could bookmark a live stream but a lot of people like to listen to sports events as they happen. I personally would be ok with bookmarking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Are you really claiming a mobile computer is necessary to have a customized computing environment? Funny, I log into perhaps a hundred different websites from different computers. Yet they all have my custom settings.
Those settings are somewhere in the cloud though and can be lost. I like being in control of my data and being assured access to it at all times regardless of network connection or landline power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Damn... I've got to leave to meet people, but would otherwise continue this post.
But you know what. I can continue this post at home or wherever I want... even though it is being typed on a stationary computer.
With a portable, you could post on the way. If this was a stock exchange deal, you could have lost all your money in the time it took to get to the destination. If this was a meeting you were going to, what if you forgot to prepare for it but remembered about it while you were on a train journey?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Just one final thought. I envision the internet providing us with a custom computing environment wherever we go, not the box in our pocket. The box in our pocket can be lost, stolen, or damaged. Relying on it entirely is a bad idea.
That's true, but remote tracing, remote wipe, mobile data backups help to overcome the issues. Fixed devices have similar problems though. When you are at work, the entire contents of your home are outside of your supervision. Of course, if a device is sealed to my 60" TV burglars will have some trouble moving it so in many respects items that cause me an inconvenience cause that same inconvenience to people who want to steal them but they could just smash the screen and I'm left having to figure out how to move the data from the old one to a new one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42
The trackpad alone would drive me nuts.
You can use a wireless mouse though and an external keyboard and display.
My point, and I do have one, is statistics can be slanted depending on how you look at them.
Yes of course statistics can be slanted, but this is a story about sales statistics but you are talking about usage/ownership statistics. It's not the same thing.. so your point is irrelevant.
Quote:
If desktop sales are down, while portable computers are up, gee, that could be interpreted as a decline for the desktop.
Correct
Quote:
Oh well, as long as desktop computers are for sale, I will own them.
EDIT: Now that I've looked at it, sure looks that way. BTW, I did read all the way to the bottom. where I'm pretty much assured I have nothing to worry about just yet.
Comments
It makes more sense as, "why carry something around when you don't need to?"
I get where you're coming from but it assumes a ubiquitous computer presence, which I can't see being feasible. There was a demo recently of something along these lines though.
There was a giant multi-touch wall and people just wear an RFID card and the computer knows who you are - you'd just walk up to a random computer wall and start working.
But these machines won't be literally everywhere and there are things people need everywhere - music, directions, the ability to take pictures/video, the ability to communicate, being able to access various online services and other entertainment (movies, games). To satisfy these needs, portable electronics will always be required.
But they just won't completely replace stationary computers. I'm baffled that anyone would claim otherwise.
Ok but given that portability is an advantage for servicing (e.g. easier to take a laptop to the Apple Store than a Mac Pro), purchasing online and resale, stationary machines have to offer something more than portable machines to make up for that inconvenience.
Right now, it's performance. Some will say upgrades too but really that's performance/capacity related. Computers haven't satisfied all of our needs. They've satisfied a lot of them, which is why the sales of stationary machines are dropping fast because that performance benefit doesn't outweigh the advantage of portability for a lot of people.
I think ultimately it comes down to whether or not people assume computers won't need to be faster or have larger capacity. I strongly believe that personal computers won't need to be faster than a certain point and I don't think we're all that far away from that point. That being the case, I just don't see what advantage a machine that is only stationary will offer.
There could be machines that do not require portability but I look at my portable iphone next to my Mini and I think, when the iphone is that fast and I can take it with me, what need is there for manufacturers to make stationary machines? Performance and cost for now but what happens when those factors don't matter?
Mac Mini = 2 x 2GHz, 4 GB Ram, 250GB drive, 9400M
iphone 3GS = 1 x 600MHz, 256MB Ram, 32GB space, PowerVR
Give the iphone 3 iterations and you'd be up to quad core 1GHz, 2GB Ram, 250GB space and a PowerVR that could match the 9400M. It's perfectly possible to have your iphone as your desktop computer in 3 years.
I would not want to second guess what things will be like in the computing future
I found it interesting when someone bumped an old thread about optical drives a while back and I noticed an old post where I had written that optical drives were an absolute necessity in a computer. These days, my opinion on that has changed completely seeing how people use software and media content.
The best we can do in the present is look at what we'd all like to be doing in the future and try to assess what goals will make that happen. That goal as judged from the present is not likely to be a common one but in the future it will be and determining what that is makes people/companies successful. Sometimes it's not determining what it is but defining it and pushing people down that route.
The goal for me would be that everyone has an iphone-style device as their personal computer and there are just as many types of displays and input devices to interact with your own device and they charge up wirelessly when you sit them on your work surfaces at home. You never have to purposely sit at a computer, the computer will be with you wherever you want to sit and media is served over always-on always-connected networks.
But yeah, I agree with your vision of how those devices will be used. I just don't agree that this will be the only model for computer usage.
Relying entirely on a pocket computer is not the most robust and flexible computing paradigm. The pocket computer could be stolen, lost, physically damaged, or corrupt. When people sit down at their big computing screen at home, it needs to work no matter what. Relying on entirely on portable devices introduces all kinds of potential problems.
I find it far more likely that both our portable computers and our stationary computers will rely on network based storage and processing power. Certainly caching will be used to ensure functionality whenever out of network range. But to put it all on the device in one's pocket is just asking for trouble.
The goal for me would be that everyone has an iphone-style device as their personal computer and there are just as many types of displays and input devices to interact with...
And to reply to one point in particular...
The goal isn't a form factor, but instead to make computer usage more productive, convenient, and entertaining. The goal should define the form factor, not the other way around.
Edit:
Most of the rest of your post deals with performance. If you look back at what I've been describing as the reasons why stationary computing is desirable, you'll notice that performance has hardly come up at all. Screen size, ergonomics, reliability, not having to carry something around... etc.
In my opinion, performance will always matter for some scenarios. But the case for stationary computing doesn't revolve around performance so I'll refrain from going into that debatable subject.
When used in conjunction with a larger stationary screen, wouldn't that larger stationary screen also require processing capabilities in order to interface with the iPhone and peripherals? Once that's the case, why not just make those devices fully capable without requiring an extra box?
The display would just receive the video and control signals from your device. On the point about reliability and the extra box, assume that (like the iMac) this computing part is fixed somewhere in the back of your 60" TV device and it breaks. What do you do? Find a way to transport your entire 60" display unit to fix components that fit into your hand and have to make do without the display until it's fixed.
Or, do you simply use another portable device in the short term and take back the broken one at your convenience? It's true that these devices don't have to be portable in the sense of usable on the move - they can be external, static and just really small like the Apple TV box and just sync to mobile devices but right now, an ipod touch can do what an ATV can do processing-wise. It just needs more storage and a display connection. I know which one I'd rather have sitting next to my razor thin TV unit. Storage will be a limitation but the TV can have its own.
When a device can do that, there is little reason not to make it usable on the move too, especially if the cost is low. Same deal with putting displays on routers. It's not necessary usually but if you can for a cheap enough price, why not?
If you look back at what I've been describing as the reasons why stationary computing is desirable, you'll notice that performance has hardly come up at all. Screen size, ergonomics, reliability, not having to carry something around... etc.
Screen size and ergonomics don't matter so much for the device itself. If you sit a mobile device next to a 60" TV and it pulls content from it, you aren't having strain from using it and you aren't limited by its screen size.
I don't find portable devices to be less reliable generally. My iphone is on 24/7 and doesn't hang or crash, same as the various desktops I use. If anything, mobile parts are more reliable as they are built to handle higher temperatures and they draw less power.
I obviously can't say in absolute terms that these events will come about, only time will tell what happens. I just think it's possible and it's what I'd like to happen.
Predicting 100% reliance on a sole variation of anything seems rather foolish. For instance, cars don't comprise 100% of our transportation. The prediction that every computer will be portable seems analogous to someone in the Model-T era predicting that all travel will be accomplished by automobile.
Another analogy; Radios have long been portable and battery powered. But yet we have stationary units everywhere. (A car head-unit is considered stationary right?
A lot of logical contortion seems needed to support the claim that 100% of computers will be battery powered and portable.
It may not be 100% but as close as needed, people will always use whatever suits the needs best but right now it's 80:20 in favor of portables sales-wise. You could say that there are VHS and BetaMax players still in use but I'm sure that people would generally agree that digital PVR and DVD players have taken over that role. In 10 years, the needs of the 20% static machine buyers will gradually be met by smaller and smaller machines and smallness implies portability.
I don't think it's possible to say for certain that static machines will always be around. We've only been using computers for a few decades. In another 20-30 years, computers could be vastly different from what we have now, not just smaller.
As sales of static machines erode, the prices can't be as low so you find that even today, a portable machine costs around about the same as a desktop. Dell's lowest Core 2 Duo laptop is £400 and their Core 2 Duo desktop with no display is £400 the latter is just a bit faster. The iMacs match the laptops price/performance.
The question is, if a static machine is the same speed and the same price as a portable one, why buy the static one? They're not more reliable, they won't be cheaper, they won't be faster and they have the same ergonomics if you use the same input devices. Why buy the portable one? It's portable. Even if you don't need portability, it's not a bad feature.
For instance, cars don't comprise 100% of our transportation.
That's because one vehicle doesn't work for all types of travel - can't fly or sail in a car, computers all do the same thing though. They all process data, from the digital wrist watch to the supercomputer, it's all binary data.
Another analogy; Radios have long been portable and battery powered. But yet we have stationary units everywhere. (A car head-unit is considered stationary right?
You guys still use built-in car radios? This isn't 2001. I plug my ipod directly into the stereo unit. I don't need the unit itself, just the speakers.
The problem with the built-in setup is what happens when you need to get out the car but you haven't finished listening to your content? Future technology should remove the barriers. Look at the mobile phone industry. Remember when they started out, the signals weren't so good and people would say how much easier it was just to use a static landline.
People still use landlines despite the ubiquity of mobile phones, they haven't gone anywhere yet. But how much do you use one or the other? My mobile usage exceeds my landline usage these days. The main reasons I have a landline at all is that it comes with the broadband provider, service accounts often require a landline number and the calls are cheaper.
For my landline to connect, the road was dug up and it took 2 weeks and when I move house, I have to go through the whole thing again. During the installation time, I used my mobile phone to get online and communicate.
The other reason I see more usage of mobile devices is that connection to you individually. If you call a landline, you get a secretary or some other member of staff or family instead of who you want. A mobile device is direct to you and you personalize your device. You personalize your media preferences, your caller lists, your apps.
It may not be 100% but as close as needed, people will always use whatever suits the needs best but right now it's 80:20 in favor of portables sales-wise. You could say that there are VHS and BetaMax players still in use but I'm sure that people would generally agree that digital PVR and DVD players have taken over that role. In 10 years, the needs of the 20% static machine buyers will gradually be met by smaller and smaller machines and smallness implies portability.
That's a horrible analogy. It implies that portable computers are a next-gen technology as compared to stationary computers. This is false. Both have scenarios in which they are superior
I don't think it's possible to say for certain that static machines will always be around. We've only been using computers for a few decades. In another 20-30 years, computers could be vastly different from what we have now, not just smaller.
As sales of static machines erode, the prices can't be as low so you find that even today, a portable machine costs around about the same as a desktop. Dell's lowest Core 2 Duo laptop is £400 and their Core 2 Duo desktop with no display is £400 the latter is just a bit faster. The iMacs match the laptops price/performance.
The question is, if a static machine is the same speed and the same price as a portable one, why buy the static one? They're not more reliable, they won't be cheaper, they won't be faster and they have the same ergonomics if you use the same input devices. Why buy the portable one? It's portable. Even if you don't need portability, it's not a bad feature.
Static seems like the wrong word to use.
You ask why not a portable computer? For one thing, batteries cost money. Disposal is also becoming a huge issue. It is illegal to throw batteries in the trash in many nations. Recently, while qualifying one of our products for sale in Europe, all kinds of regulations had to be met with regard to battery chemistry and disposal contingencies.
The trend toward green server rooms means fewer batteries, not a battery in every single device. Should things like network switches be battery powered? Just about all of our rack mount server room gear is a computer nowadays. They've got peripheral ports and incredibly complex operating systems, including text and graphical interfaces.
You guys still use built-in car radios? This isn't 2001. I plug my ipod directly into the stereo unit. I don't need the unit itself, just the speakers.
Yes, some people like to hear music they've never heard before, live news, traffic reports, and weather (to name a few). Hopefully that comment was in jest. If not, it would seem to suggest a blindness to usage other than one's own.
The problem with the built-in setup is what happens when you need to get out the car but you haven't finished listening to your content? Future technology should remove the barriers. Look at the mobile phone industry. Remember when they started out, the signals weren't so good and people would say how much easier it was just to use a static landline.
Seriously? Media playback bookmarks don't require a computer in your pocket. The internet works just fine for that. Right now, as a stop-gap measure, it is necessary to carry around a computer in your pocket. This won't always be the case.
For instance. I use netflix streaming. No matter which computer i'm at, the environment is familiar and playback begins from where I last left off. Thank god it doesn't require me to carry around a computer.
Landlines are still heavily relied upon. There are many environments in which wireless devices are impossible to use. I work in just such a building. The forges used in manufacturing our microscopic pipettes throw off absolutely huge amount of stray RF. Combined with the metal building, phone reception is unreliable.
Landlines also facilitate calling a location instead of a person. Frequently I need to call a room, not a person.
Finally, many companies prohibit mobile phones in controlled areas. This typically has to do with security. Ever since cameras started appearing on phones, thousands of companies and government agencies banned mobile phones in the workplace.
The other reason I see more usage of mobile devices is that connection to you individually. If you call a landline, you get a secretary or some other member of staff or family instead of who you want. A mobile device is direct to you and you personalize your device. You personalize your media preferences, your caller lists, your apps.
There's no argument about mobile devices being useful. I'm just taking issue with your assertion that stationary computers will entirely disappear.
Are you really claiming a mobile computer is necessary to have a customized computing environment? Funny, I log into perhaps a hundred different websites from different computers. Yet they all have my custom settings.
And now to further present my case rather than just rebutting yours...
Why a stationary computer? More reasons off of the top of my head...
* No battery to buy or dispose of.
* Casing. Portable devices are constructed to be easily carried. Stationary devices are designed around other criteria. Easy stackability. A shape that hides behind or attaches to other devices. Asthetics, something that looks good in your pocket doesn't necessarily look good in your living room. Durability; some environments are better served by putting the device out of harms way.
* No need to carry a box around in order to use a computer. If one is already in the room, go ahead and use it. It will still have your custom computing environment.
Damn... I've got to leave to meet people, but would otherwise continue this post.
But you know what. I can continue this post at home or wherever I want... even though it is being typed on a stationary computer.
Just one final thought. I envision the internet providing us with a custom computing environment wherever we go, not the box in our pocket. The box in our pocket can be lost, stolen, or damaged. Relying on it entirely is a bad idea.
Desktop PC sales have declined 23%. The steepest sales decline in computer sales history.
Notebooks now make up 80% of consumer US computer sales.
Gizmodo
Original post above. My guess is this stat is sorta slanted. Most people probably have their desktop computer by now. Netbooks are probably a pretty decent part of this statistic. I think the key word is now. Notebooks now make up 80% of consumer US computer sales. The statistic I'd actually like to see is how many desktops there are out there, and how many non-desktops. Probably a very hard piece of data to collect. Just like some people only use a wireless phone, it isn't for everyone. There is nothing good about a notebook or netbook for me. The trackpad alone would drive me nuts. And that would not take long, trust me. Having a true all-in-one configuration is not cool for all of us. Having a fixed distance between me and the screen, is not exactly a good thing. So ... Marvin is right that things will change. dfiler is right in that it will take a while. Hopefully, a long while. I am still angry over the switch to digital, both audio and video. Compression, when abused, ruins everything.
Original post above. My guess is this stat is sorta slanted. Most people probably have their desktop computer by now. Netbooks are probably a pretty decent part of this statistic. I think the key word is now. Notebooks now make up 80% of consumer US computer sales. The statistic I'd actually like to see is how many desktops there are out there,
The title of this thread is "Desktop computer steep sales decline"
I'll bow out of the discussion now to let others have their say. It sure is an intriguing subject.
The title of this thread is "Desktop computer steep sales decline"
My point, and I do have one, is statistics can be slanted depending on how you look at them. If desktop sales are down, while portable computers are up, gee, that could be interpreted as a decline for the desktop. Oh well, as long as desktop computers are for sale, I will own them.
There are hundreds of millions of desktop computers in the market right now. But that doesn't matter because no one cares about what was sold two years ago. They only care about what they can sell today and tomorrow. The shift is clearly towards portable machines.
Original post above. My guess is this stat is sorta slanted. Most people probably have their desktop computer by now. Netbooks are probably a pretty decent part of this statistic. I think the key word is now. Notebooks now make up 80% of consumer US computer sales. The statistic I'd actually like to see is how many desktops there are out there, and how many non-desktops. Probably a very hard piece of data to collect. Just like some people only use a wireless phone, it isn't for everyone. There is nothing good about a notebook or netbook for me. The trackpad alone would drive me nuts. And that would not take long, trust me. Having a true all-in-one configuration is not cool for all of us. Having a fixed distance between me and the screen, is not exactly a good thing. So ... Marvin is right that things will change. dfiler is right in that it will take a while. Hopefully, a long while. I am still angry over the switch to digital, both audio and video. Compression, when abused, ruins everything.
My point, and I do have one, is statistics can be slanted depending on how you look at them. If desktop sales are down, while portable computers are up, gee, that could be interpreted as a decline for the desktop. Oh well, as long as desktop computers are for sale, I will own them.
You ask why not a portable computer? For one thing, batteries...
I agree that batteries need to be improved considerably but there's always a possibility that some of the tech available in labs could reach the market in a few years. I'm holding out for controlled nuclear fusion mini-reactors that last 100 years = 100% clean energy for all.
The trend toward green server rooms means fewer batteries, not a battery in every single device. Should things like network switches be battery powered? Just about all of our rack mount server room gear is a computer nowadays.
Server and Enterprise hardware can take a different route but the reason that 'a battery in every device' sounds like a bad idea is because of the number of devices we see today - I agree that a large number of batteries isn't good when there's a more efficient way. But will we need the same amount of servers or more in 10 years that we do today or 1/10th the amount?
Hosting companies see a lot of redundancy in server hardware where a lot of machines are under-used and to cut costs, they can virtualize machines on a single server and drop the prices considerably.
Naturally the population grows so more resources are required and it may be the case that we all move to a server- and network-centric model. I personally don't want my data online where it can be stolen or lost by a hosting company trainee and I don't want to be disconnected from that data through a network malfunction or signal loss.
Yes, some people like to hear music they've never heard before, live news, traffic reports, and weather
This can be streamed to a portable too. The iphone has radio apps. Spotify for the iphone will let you listen to a whole catalog of streaming music.
Seriously? Media playback bookmarks don't require a computer in your pocket.
I guess you could bookmark a live stream but a lot of people like to listen to sports events as they happen. I personally would be ok with bookmarking.
Are you really claiming a mobile computer is necessary to have a customized computing environment? Funny, I log into perhaps a hundred different websites from different computers. Yet they all have my custom settings.
Those settings are somewhere in the cloud though and can be lost. I like being in control of my data and being assured access to it at all times regardless of network connection or landline power.
Damn... I've got to leave to meet people, but would otherwise continue this post.
But you know what. I can continue this post at home or wherever I want... even though it is being typed on a stationary computer.
With a portable, you could post on the way.
Just one final thought. I envision the internet providing us with a custom computing environment wherever we go, not the box in our pocket. The box in our pocket can be lost, stolen, or damaged. Relying on it entirely is a bad idea.
That's true, but remote tracing, remote wipe, mobile data backups help to overcome the issues. Fixed devices have similar problems though. When you are at work, the entire contents of your home are outside of your supervision. Of course, if a device is sealed to my 60" TV burglars will have some trouble moving it so in many respects items that cause me an inconvenience cause that same inconvenience to people who want to steal them but they could just smash the screen and I'm left having to figure out how to move the data from the old one to a new one.
The trackpad alone would drive me nuts.
You can use a wireless mouse though and an external keyboard and display.
My point, and I do have one, is statistics can be slanted depending on how you look at them.
Yes of course statistics can be slanted, but this is a story about sales statistics but you are talking about usage/ownership statistics. It's not the same thing.. so your point is irrelevant.
If desktop sales are down, while portable computers are up, gee, that could be interpreted as a decline for the desktop.
Correct
Oh well, as long as desktop computers are for sale, I will own them.
And so will I... however that't not the point.
http://gizmodo.com/5301401/so-long-desktop-pc-you-suck
EDIT: Now that I've looked at it, sure looks that way. BTW, I did read all the way to the bottom. where I'm pretty much assured I have nothing to worry about just yet.