Cloud systems are the new mainframe

The history of computers can be divided (somewhat arbitrarily) into six periods. These are:

Mainframe
Timeshare (on mainframes)
Minicomputers
Desktop computers (includes pre-PC microcomputers, workstations, and laptops)
Servers and networked desktops
Mobile devices (phones and tablets)

I was going to add 'cloud systems' to the list as a seventh period, but I got to thinking.

My six arbitrary periods of computing show definite trends. The first trend is size: computers became physically smaller in each successive period. Mainframe computers were (and are) large systems that occupy rooms. Minicomputers were the sizes of refrigerators. Desktop computers fit on (or under) a desk. Mobile devices are small enough to carry in a shirt pocket.

The next trend is cost. Each successive period has a lower cost than the previous one. Mainframes cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Minicomputers in the tens of thousands. Desktop computers were typically under $3000 (although some did edge up near $10,000) and today are usually under $1000. Mobile device costs range from $50 to $500.

The third trend is administrative effort or "load". Mainframes needed a team of well-trained attendants. Minicomputers needed one knowledgeable person to act as "system operator" or "sysop". Desktop computers could be administered by a geeky person in the home, or for large offices a team of support persons (but less than one support person per PC). Mobile devices need... no one. (Well, technically they are administered by the tribal chieftains: Apple, Google, or Microsoft.)

Cloud systems defy these trends.

By "cloud systems", I mean the cloud services that are offered by Amazon.com, Microsoft, Google, and others. I am including all of the services: infrastructure as a service, platform as a service, software as a service, machine images, queue systems, compute engines, storage engines, web servers... the whole kaboodle.

Cloud systems are large and expensive. They also tend to be limited in number, perhaps because they are large and expensive. They also have a sizable team of attendants. Cloud systems are complex and a large team is needed to keep everything running.

Cloud systems are much like mainframe computers.

The cloud services that are offered by vendors are much like the timesharing services offered by mainframe owners. With timesharing, customers could buy just as much computing time as they needed. Sound familiar? It's the model used by cloud computing.

We have, with cloud computing, returned to the mainframe era. This period has many similarities with the mainframe period. Mainframes were large, expensive to own, complex, and expensive to operate. Cloud systems are the same. The early mainframe period saw a number of competitors: IBM, NCR, CDC, Burroughs, Honeywell, and Univac, to name a few. Today we see competition between Amazon.com, Microsoft, Google, and others (including IBM).

Perhaps my "periods of computing history" is not so much a linear list as a cycle. Perhaps we are about to go "around" again, starting with the mainframe (or cloud) stage of expensive systems and evolve forward. What can we expect?

The mainframe period can be divided into two subperiods: before the System/360 and after. Before the IBM System/360, there was competition between companies and different designs. After the IBM System/360, companies standardized on that architecture. The System/360 design is still visible in mainframes of today.

An equivalent action in cloud systems would be the standardization of a cloud architecture. Perhaps the Open Stack software, perhaps Microsoft's Azure. I do not know which it will be. The key is for companies to standardize on one architecture. If it is a proprietary architecture, then that architecture's vendor is elevated to the role of industry leader, as IBM was with the System/360 (and later System/370) mainframes.

While companies are busy modifying their systems to conform to the industry standard platform, innovators develop technologies that allow for smaller versions. In the 1960s and 1970s, vendors introduced minicomputers. These were smaller than mainframes, less expensive, and easier to operate. For cloud systems, the equivalent would be... smaller than mainframe clouds, less expensive, and easier to operate. They would be less sophisticated than mainframe clouds, but "mini clouds" would still be useful.

In the late 1970s, technology advances lead to the microcomputer which could be purchased and used by a single person. As with mainframe computers, there were a variety of competing standards. After IBM introduced the Personal Computer, businesses (and individuals) elevated it to industry standard. Equivalent events in cloud would mean the development of individual-sized cloud systems, small enough to be purchased by a single person.

The 1980s saw the rise of desktop computers. The 1990s saw the rise of networked computers, desktop and server. An equivalent for cloud would be connecting cloud systems to one another. Somehow I think this "inter-cloud connection" will occur earlier, perhaps in the "mini cloud" period. We already have the network hardware and protocols in place. Connecting cloud systems will probably require some high-level protocols, and maybe faster connections, but the work should be minimal.

I'm still thinking of adding "cloud systems" to my list of computing periods. But I'm pretty sure that it won't be the last entry.

Innovation in mobile and cloud; not in PCs

The history of IT is the history of innovation. But innovation is not evenly distributed, and it does not stay with one technology.

For a long time, innovation focussed on the PC. The "center of gravity" for innovation was, for a long time, the IBM PC and PC-DOS. Later it became the PC (not necessarily from IBM) and Windows. Windows NT, Windows 2000, and Windows XP all saw significant expansions of features.

With the rise of the Web, the center of gravity shifted to web servers and web browsers. I think that it is no coincidence that Microsoft offered Windows XP with no significant changes. People accepted Windows XP as "good enough" and looked for innovation in other areas -- web browsers, web servers, and databases.

This change broke Microsoft's business model. That business model (selling new versions of Windows and Office to individuals and corporations every so often) was broken when users decided that Windows XP was good enough, that Microsoft Office was good enough. They moved to newer versions reluctantly, not expectantly.

Microsoft is changing its business model. It is shifting to a subscription model for Windows and Office. It has Azure for cloud services. It developed the Surface tablet for mobile computing. Microsoft's Windows RT was an attempt at an operating system for mobile devices, an operating system that had reduced administrative tasks for the user. These are the areas of innovation.

We have stopped wanting new desktop software. I know of no new projects that target the desktop. I know of no new projects that are "Windows only" or "PC only". New projects are designed for mobile/cloud, or possibly web browsers and servers. With no demand for new applications on the desktop, there is no pressure to improve the desktop PC - or its operating system.

With no pressure to improve the desktop, there is no need to change the hardware or operating system. We see changes in three areas: larger memory and disks (mostly from inertia), smaller form factors, and prettier user interfaces (Windows Vista and Windows 8 "Metro"). With each of these changes, users can (rightfully) ask: what is the benefit to me?

It is a question that newer PCs and operating systems have not answered. But tablets and smartphones answer it quite well.

I think that Windows 10 is the "last hurrah" for Windows -- at least the desktop version. Innovations to Windows will be modifications for mobile/cloud technologies: better interactions with virtualization hypervisors and container managers. Aside from those, look for little changes in desktop operating systems.

Tablets change our expectations of software

PC software, over time, has grown in size and complexity. For any product, any version had more features (and used more memory) than the previous version.

Microsoft Windows almost made such a change. The marketing materials for Windows offered many things; one of them was simplicity. Windows programs would be "easy to use", so easy that they would be "intuitive".

While software under Windows become more consistent (identical commands to open and save files) and programs could share data (via the clipboard), they were not simpler. The steady march of "more features" continued. Today, Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel are the standards for word processing and spreadsheets, and both are bulging with features, menus, add-ins, and sophisticated scripting. Competing PC software duplicates all of those features.

Software for tablets is following a different model.

The products for tablets released by Apple, Google, and even Microsoft are reduced versions of their PC counterparts. Apple's "Pages" is a word processor, but smaller than Microsoft Word. Google's "Drive" (the app formerly called "Docs") is a word processor with fewer features than Microsoft Word, and a spreadsheet with fewer features than Microsoft Excel. Even Microsoft's version of Word and Excel for Windows RT omits certain functions.

I see three drivers of this change:

The tablet interface limits features: Tablets have smaller screens, virtual keyboards, and the software generally has no drop-down menus. It is quite difficult to translate a complex PC program into the tablet environment.

Users want tablet software to be simple: Our relationship with tablets is more intimate than our relationship with PCs. We carry tablets with us, and generally pick the one we want. PCs, in contrast, stay at a fixed location and are assigned to us (especially in the workplace). We accept complexity in PC apps, but we push back against complexity in tablet apps.

Tablets complement PCs: We use tablets and PCs for different tasks and different types of work. Tablets let us consume data and perform specific, structured transactions. We can check the status of our systems, or view updates, or read news. We can bank online or update time-tracking entries with tablet apps. For long-form composition, we still use PCs with their physical keyboards, high-precision mice, and larger screens.

The demands placed upon tablet software is different from the demands placed upon desktop software. (I consider laptop PCs to be portable desktop PCs.) We want desktop PCs for composition; we want tablets for consumption and structured transactions. Those different demands are pushing software in different directions: complex for desktops, simple for tablets.

No help for mobile apps

A big change from PC application to mobile app is the 'help' feature. Not the addition of the feature, but the removal of it.

"Help" is a distinguishing characteristic of PC and Mac applications. All modern applications have it, and most have the dual-mode 'general' help and 'context' help. The Microsoft guidelines for well-behaved Windows applications specify the "Help" menu and the "About" information. (Possibly because Apple's specifications for well-behaved Macintosh applications specify them.)

The concept of on-line help precedes Windows and Mac software. The venerable Wordstar program offered help (on-line help) in its menu configuration. Unix has provided the 'man' utility for decades.

Yet look at any mobile app and you will see no help feature. It is not a menu option. It is not a button or a hidden screen.

Apps for smart phones and tablets do not have help. And they don't need it.

This is a big change.

I can think of a few reasons that mobile apps have dropped the 'help' feature:

Single-screen focus PC help is designed for multi-window displays. Mobile apps are designed to display on the whole screen. iOS and Android enforce this; Windows RT allows for two apps to display but not an app and its help screen. When the app takes the screen, there is no room for help messages. Switching from the main app to the help app might be too much of an inconvenience.

No example There is no reference app that uses help. All of the apps run without help, and new apps copy the designs of the existing apps.

Simplicity of operation Mobile apps are designed to be simple. So simple that help is not needed. The user can operate the software without the help of help.

Of these reasons, I prefer the last. Toggling between an app and a help screen is awkward but possible. Allocating a portion of the screen to help is also possible; many apps allocate space to advertisements.

I like to think that mobile apps need no help because they are easy to use. This easy comes in two forms: ease of operations and ease of understanding the concepts. Services such as Twitter and Facebook provide easy-to-use apps that manipulate a relatively simple set of data. The concepts they use are easy to grasp.

If this is the reason, then we have an interesting aspect of mobile apps: they must be simple enough that they can be used by the average person with no help. That is, there is an upper bound on the complexity of the app. Photoshop and Visual Studio will never be mobile apps, at least not in their current forms.

As applications migrate from desktop to web to mobile, they must become simpler. (Web apps, like mobile apps, have dropped the 'help' feature.) If my theory is correct, then we should see the mobile versions of apps like Microsoft Word and Excel existing as simpler versions of their desktop PC counterparts.

I keep saying 'simpler', but that should not mean 'less powerful'. We may see some reduction in capabilities, but I suspect the big changes will be to the user interface and the techniques we use to manipulate data.

No more PCs for me

This week I decided to never buy a PC again. I currently have four, plus a laptop. They will be enough for me to transition to the new world of tablets and virtual servers.

This is almost a bittersweet moment. I was there prior to the PC, when the Apple II and the Radio Shack TRS-80 were dominant (and my favorite, the Heathkit H-89 was ignored). I was there at the beginning of the PC age, when IBM introduced the PC (the model 5150) and everyone absolutely had to have them. PCs were the new thing, a rebel force against the established (IBM) mainframes and batch processing and centralized control. I resented IBM's power in the market.

I saw the rise of the PC clones, first the Compaq and later, everyone. I saw IBM's attempt to re-define the standard with the PS/2 and the market's reaction (buy into Compaq and other PC clones).

I saw the rise of Windows, and the change from command-line programs to GUI programs.

Now, I have seen the (Microsoft Windows) PC become the established computer, complete with centralized control. The new rebel force uses tablets and virtual servers.

I am uncomfortable with Apple's power over app suppliers for iOS devices, and Microsoft's power over app suppliers for Windows RT devices. I am leery of Google's power, although the Android ecosystem is a bit more open that iOS and Windows RT.

Yet I am swept along with the changes. I use an Android tablet in the morning, to check Facebook, Twitter, and news sites. (A Viewsonic gTablet, which received poor reviews for it's non-standard interface, yet I am coming to like it.) I use an Android smartphone during the day. I use a different Android tablet in the evening. (Although I am typing this on my Lenovo laptop with a Matias USB keyboard.) While I have not moved everything to the tablets, I have moved a lot and I expect to switch completely within a few months.

My existing PCs have been converted to the server version of Ubuntu Linux, with the one exception of a PC running Windows 7. I suspect that I will never convert that PC to Windows 8, but instead let it die with dignity.

I was there at the beginning, and I am here at the end. (Of the PC age.) Oh, I recognize that desktop and laptop PCs will be with us for a while, just as mainframes stayed with us. But the Cool New Stuff will be on tablets, not on PCs.

Microsoft changes its direction

Microsoft recently announced a new version of its Office suite (version 13), and included support for the ODF format. This is big news.

The decision to support ODF does not mean that the open source fanboys have "won".

As I see it, the decision to support ODF means that Microsoft has changed its strategy.

Microsoft became dominant in Windows applications, in part due to the proprietary formats of Microsoft Office and the network effect: everyone wanted Microsoft Office (and nothing else) because everyone that they knew (and with whom they exchanged documents) used Microsoft Office. The proprietary format ensured that one used the true Microsoft Office and not a clone or compatible suite.

Microsoft used that network effect to drive people to Windows (providing a Mac version of Office that was close but not quite the same as the Windows version). Their strategy was to sell licenses for Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Active Directory, Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft SQL Server, and other Microsoft products, all interlocking and using proprietary formats for storage.

And that strategy worked for two decades, from 1990 to 2010.

Several lawsuits and injunctions forced Microsoft to open their formats to external players. Once they did, other office suites gained the ability to read and write files for Office.

With Microsoft including the ODF formats in Office, they are no longer relying on proprietary file formats. Which means that they have some other strategy in mind.

That new strategy remains to be seen. I suspect that it will include their Surface tablets and Windows smartphones. I also expect cloud computing (in the form of Windows Azure) to be part of the strategy too.

The model of selling software on shiny plastic discs has come to an end. With that change comes the end of the desktop model of computing, and the dawn of the tablet model of computing.