After the PC

Is the M1 Mac a PC? That is, is the new Macbook a personal computer?

To answer that question, let's take a brief trip through the history of computing devices.

Mainframes were the first commercially viable electronic computing devices. They were large and consisted of a processing unit and a few peripherals. The CPU was the most important feature.

Minicomputers followed mainframes, and had an important difference: They had terminals as peripherals. The most important feature was not the CPU but the number of terminals.

PCs were different from minicomputers in that they had integrated video and and integrated keyboard. They did not have terminals. In this sense, M1 Macs are PCs.

Yet in another sense, M1 Macs are something different: They cannot be modified.

IBM PCs were designed for modification. The IBM PC had slots for accessory cards. The information for those slots was available. Other manufacturers could design and sell accessory cards. Consumers could open the computer and add hardware. They could pick their operating system (IBM offered DOS, CP/M-86, and UCSD p-System).

The openness of the IBM PC was somewhat unusual. Apple II (Apple ][) computers were not openable. Macs were not openable (you needed a special tool). Other computers of the era were typically built in a way that discouraged modifications.

The IBM PC set the standard for personal computers, and that standard was "able to be opened and modified".

The M1 Macs are systems on a chip. The hardware cannot be modified. The CPU, memory, disk (well, let's call it "storage", to use the old mainframe-era term) are all fixed. Nothing can be replaced or upgraded.

In this sense, the M1 Mac is not a PC. (Of course, if it is not a PC, then what do we call it? We need a name. "System-on-a-chip" is too long, "SoC" sounds like "sock" and that won't do, either.)

I suspect that the folks at Apple will be happy to refer to their products with a term other than "PC". Apple fans, too. But I don't have a suitable, generic, term. Apple folks might suggest the term "Mac", as in "I have a Mac in my backpack", but the term "Mac" is not generic. (Unless Apple is willing to let the term be generic. If so, when I carry my SoC Chromebook, I can still say "I have a Mac in my backpack." I doubt Apple would be happy with that.)

Perhaps the closest thing to the new Apple M1 Macs is something so old that it predates the IBM PC: The electronic calculator.

Available in the mid-1970s, electronic calculators were quite popular. Small and yet capable of numeric computations, they were useful for any number of people. Like the Apple M1 Mac, they were designed to remain unopened by the user (except perhaps to replace batteries) and they were not modifiable.

So perhaps the Apple M1 Macbooks are descendants of those disco-era calculators.

* * * * *

I am somewhat saddened by the idea that personal computers have evolved into calculators, that PCs are not modifiable. I gained a lot of experience with computers by modifying them: adding memory, changing disk drives, or installing new operating systems.

A parallel change occurred in the automobile industry. In the 1950s, lots of people bought cars and tinkered with them. They replaced tires and shock absorbers, adjusted carburetors, installed superchargers and turbochargers, and replaced exhaust pipes. But over time, automobiles become more complex and more computerized, and now very few people get involved with their cars. (There are some enthusiastic car-hackers, but they are few in number.)

We lost something with that change. We lost the camaraderie of learning together, of car clubs and amateur competitions.

We lost the same thing with the change in PCs, from open, modifiable systems to closed, optimized boxes.

From general to specific

We are entering a new age of computing.

The change is the shift from general to specific. PC hardware has been, since the initial PC up to now, standard and generic. One PC was very much like another PC, in terms of architecture and capacity. This standardization made the PC market possible, with PC manufacturers, accessory vendors, and software providers all working to a common standard.

To be sure, there was always some variation among PCs. Some had faster processors; some had more memory. Enthusiasts added super-large hard drives and super-fast video cards. But they all revolved around the PC standard. (A standard that evolved over time, moving from the original PC to the IBM PC AT to the Compaq Deskpro 386 to today's Intel-based desktops.)

Now we see the standard-issue technology splitting into distinct markets with distinct hardware. Many businesses have traded their desktop PCs for laptops and shifted "back end" work to cloud servers. Game consoles are not quite PCs: they contain specialized hardware and one cannot replace the operating system (at least not easily). The home PC is being replaced by tablets and smartphones. Hobbyists are experimenting with small-board systems like the Raspberry Pi and the BeagleBone.

For each of these uses, we are replacing the desktop PC with a smaller, specialized device.

The change is not limited to hardware. While businesses still run Microsoft Windows, other devices are moving to different operating systems. Game consoles run their own operating systems; even Microsoft's Xbox runs an operating system that is based on Windows but not quite the same as Windows on the desktop PC. Tablets and phones run iOS or Android. The hobbyists are using Linux.

The good old days of standard PCs saw PCs (and Windows) everywhere. The new age of specialization sees a fragmentation of that world, with separate hardware and software for the different types of users. This differentiation will allow the different markets to develop distinct pricing for hardware and software; already competition is driving down the prices of tablets to ranges unreachable by classic PCs.

I expect the job market to fracture alone similar lines. Office applications will stay within the classic PC realm and move slowly to cloud-based solutions. The development of games is already distinct. The consumer market of apps is almost fully emerged. As the hardware and software of these markets diverge, I expect the development tools and techniques, the advertising, and the pay scales to diverge.

Eventually, we will not have "an IT jobs market" or "an IT career path". Instead, we will have career paths in business, in games and interactive entertainment, and in consumer products. Each will include IT as we think of it today (hardware, software, development, testing, etc.) as part of a larger whole. The hobbyists will perhaps be different in that they will have not a market for the exchange of dollars but a community for the exchange of information. They too will use IT for larger goals -- perhaps education or research.

We will lose the PC standard. In its place will be a standard for business, another standard for games, yet other standards for consumers, and (most likely) a collection of diverse hardware for hobbyists. I will not mourn the passing of the PC standard. It served its purpose, letting us develop a strong set of technology for diverse challenges. Now we can move to the next level and use technology that is better suited to specific tasks.