VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Article Comments (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=17)
-- Article: The PC is DEAD (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=11878)

I think you're wrong. Devices aren't going to converge. rather, devices are going to diverge into dedicated special-purpose tools (like handhelds and PCs and consoles and settop boxes and things like the Audrey) connected by networks, mostly using TCP/IP in one guise or another.

__________________
Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC<br>
<a href=http://www.taronga.com/~peter/>Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?</a>

Argent:

I think convergence of functions is going to happen. MP3 players, Cell phones, PDA, and wireless email devices may all continue to exist separately, but we are going to see growing success of multifunction devices like Pocket PCs and Visors. Personally, I hate having to carry several different devices. As these functions get condensed into our PDAs while still maintaining the classic SIZE/WEIGHT/PRICE/BATTERY LIFE formula, its popularity is inevitable.

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

At that level I suppose you're going to see something like convergence, but that's more a matter of one device getting more functionality. PCs started out with floppies and drives hooked to them by cables, and they pulled together into an all-in-one device... and then split apart again. You hit a moderate level of integration and then bounced back.

The integrated TRS-80s and Macintoshes became the exception, because the display was a big expensive generic device that you could use on lots of different machines, and different people wanted pretty radically different displays.

TVs and VCRs, too, you had a short term vogue for TVs with built-in VCRs, but now they're rare. Certain kinds of integration just don't make sense.

I don't know how much you're going to get integrated in your handheld computer. The MP3 player's going to be a common capability because once the hardware's good enough it's almost no cost to add it in. But you're still going to have standalone MP3 players, ones with rotating storage (mini CDs) for example, or really rugged ones without an expensive and fragile screen.

But you're going to have stuff splitting up again, on new lines, in ways neither of us thought of. You want an MP3 player, so you'll carry something around that's big enough to hold a good speaker and a good display. And something with a big enough battery so you can use it as a cellphone. That's integration. But the next guy, he just wants the smallest thing he can, so he'll have a wristwatch with data in it, and not bother with the big bulky palm-sized display device unless he thinks he'll need to do a lot of data entry. Someone else will have a paperback-sized gaget with a built-in keyboard.

But most of them will talk to each other using bluetooth and 802.11 and that Intel low-speed home wireless net stuff.

Convergence is just a little slice of the future.

__________________
Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC<br>
<a href=http://www.taronga.com/~peter/>Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?</a>

Mr. Nichols,

I'll try to write something more compelling and interesting for you in the future. BTW, you have any suggestions of what I should have called my commentary?

Maybe:

The PC is Alive and Kicking

or....

Look Up Ahead, We're Converging

how about...

Here is an Article About the Obvious Future of Computing


BTW...my opinions or my ideas may be old hat to you...but if everybody in the industry was so hip to this, we should have had it already. I'm not proclaiming to predict the future...I am not claiming to be a visionary...just trying to give some food for thought to those who may feel as I do...or may not have thought of it before.

Hey...I don't mind a critique...but at least make your comments more compelling and interesting than you found my writing.

__________________
I saw that everyone else had a signature and I felt left out, so here is mine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by agraham999
I grow weary of all this discussion of the "killer app." There is no such thing. There is only "killer need." Apps don't make themselves...people face a need and they create a solution for it. So if you are looking for the next killer app...look at your handheld and think of what your killer need is.

I'll also debate that 123 wasn't such a killer app that it drove people to buy computers...I would say that concepts drove computer sales like desktop publishing or the internet. Everyone has a different need and they purchase based on that need...even if it is gaming or accounting.

---

Yes, you probably will want to do some data entry through your computer (or just use a portable keyboard). Yes, you probably will have to install your programs from a PC.


Actually, there is a web browser that lets you download palm programs straight from the internet. But that's just one thing. I do agree with the article, how you can send a file across a table, when what it actually is is from one PC to another. Since the handhelds will be able to remotely access the home PC, the handhelds act as the opener of the file, and the PCs really do the transfer.

Looking at the currently used protocols, I suspect that the most likely remote file transfer will be some kind of proxied email client using an extension of IMAP... you'd talk to your home server using HTTP, and have it attach the file and mail it to the recipient who would download the text and then tell his home IMAP server where to save the attachment.

Some kind of authenticated peer-to-peer protocol just for the purpose would be better, but people are already used to mailing files.

__________________
Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC<br>
<a href=http://www.taronga.com/~peter/>Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?</a>

Converge was a poor choice of words in that I meant its the next logical step that all devices will communicate with eachother.

As for a title, as has been stated in this topic, "The PC is DEAD" is not what your article was about! You clearly stated that it was changing to be the hub of all our devices. I'm going to go write about a story about my puppy who has grown up into an adult dog and name it "The puppy is DEAD".

The reason it hasn't happened yet is because people can't agree on standards and it takes too long to implement them. BlueTooth is a good example, it was SUPPOSED to be here early last year but we still don't have it. Another reason we do not "have it already" is because of cost. Most people can't afford to have all of these electronics. Sure, prices are comming down but they're not down so much that this is viable for most people.

For those who really want it though, and have the money, most of this IS already here.

__________________
Matt Nichols
[email protected]

Well, something is going to be the hub of all our devices. Whether it's the PC or the PC is just another device that talks to the hub, that's not a given. The PC... in terms of 'a desktop box running Windows or MacOS'... is pretty poorly designed for the job. Windows and MacOS are not good server operating systems, and the hub is a server.

I can see the firewall/router that you have your cable modem or DSL line plugged into expanding to fill the role too. You will already need someting there, and it's the logical place to put your mail server and anything you need to talk to over the Internet.

__________________
Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC<br>
<a href=http://www.taronga.com/~peter/>Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?</a>

quote:

---

Originally posted by argent
I can see the firewall/router that you have your cable modem or DSL line plugged into expanding to fill the role too. You will already need someting there, and it's the logical place to put your mail server and anything you need to talk to over the Internet.

---

__________________
James Hromadka
Old Friend

Alan, while your article makes many intresting points, I just don't buy the title "The PC is DEAD" or your correction in this thread: "The PC as we know it is DEAD."

Huge numbers of PCs are used for tasks like word processing, desktop publishing, animation, rendering, file serving, and graphic design without a PDA anywhere in sight.

The ubiquity of PDAs in no way diminishes the use of PCs as we know them in these and other capacities.

I'm not taking issue with the body of the article, or your hypothesis about the evolution of home use of PCs (perhaps your timetable). I'm saying that putting "PC" and "DEAD" in the same phrase is simply sensationalism, and sells short the interesting and relevant issues that you raise in the article.

__________________
Jeff

PDAENVY,



The title is used to entice...to pique your interest. No different than any other commentary done by any other journalist...and it was meant to get your attention. I used it just for that effect...and it worked.



My piece is commentary...not fact, but full of facts. I wrote it to challenge and get discussions just like this one going. I wanted to incite a debate. Everyone here has differing opinions and views...some people agree with me and some do not. I don't think that the title is really an issue. It is a device just like any other to intrigue you into digging a little deeper.



I am not a journalist by trade. I started writing because I got tired of the self-important windbags that often write some scathing article about the PC industry and yet have never developed a piece of software, never sold anything, never worked in the actual industry. I've been in the software biz and the Internet for 10 years. I like to comment on what I see...I may be right, but I could be wrong. For you to decide.



If you think I am full of hogwash...I will say to anyone that that may be so...but maybe I am just trying to get a reaction so that we can debate the issue. I think that the exchange of ideas is the most important contribution that the web allows us to do and I don't want you to just sit back , read what I wrote and go "hmm." I want people to participate.



If what I wrote makes some people think about something they never thought was possible, then good. If what I wrote makes people start a debate and get some interesting ideas out on the table...then great. That is what I want to see. If I have to use a sensational title to get people to dig a little deeper and read something they may never have thought would be interesting...then I will use it.



I got a tough skin...and unlike many who write articles and then hide behind their firewall, letting people post remarks but not participating in the discussion, I publish my e-mail address and I participate here in this discussion. I reply to everyone who writes my whether they agree or not. I also keep my hand in this discussion instead of letting everyone just duke it out while I sit back and enjoy the maelstrom.



The only thing I want to accomplish from my articles or commentary is to get everyone here thinking and talking. If you don't like what I have to say...tell me. I'll debate you...I may argue with you...but I will always respect your opinion and I want to hear it. I got a lot of e-mail from people who probably would have skipped over this article if I had used some boring technical title...and intro. I wrote this commentary so everyone could enjoy it...not just the technically savvy.



I appreciate you posting your remark...your point is well taken...but guess what...my title...and my remarks...got you to post a response. That's exactly what I wanted.



Alan

__________________
I saw that everyone else had a signature and I felt left out, so here is mine.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/...01-02-19-pc.htm

anyone want to comment? discuss?

__________________
I saw that everyone else had a signature and I felt left out, so here is mine.