Keeping our keyboards

Tablets are quite different from desktop PCs and laptop PCs. (Obviously.)

PCs have large displays, keyboards, mice, and wired network connections. They often have CD or DVD drives. Tablets, in contrast, have small displays, virtual keyboards, a touch screen (so no mice), no wired network connection, and media storage (if any) is limited to memory cards.

So we can view the transition from PC to tablet as a shift in peripherals. The "old school" PC used physical keyboards, mice, and disks; the "new school" tablets use touch screens, virtual keyboards, and no mice tor disks.

Except for one small detail.

Tablet users are using keyboards.

Not mice.

Not printers.

Keyboards.

I do understand that some people are using tablets with mice and printers. A small minority of people, but nowhere near the sizable number of people are using physical keyboards.

The appeal of keyboards is such that people continue to use them as an input device. They carry a keyboard with their tablet. They buy tablet covers that have built-in keyboards.

I think this tells us something about keyboards.

Tablets have it harder than PCs

As a new technology, tablets have a much harder job than PCs had.

When individuals and companies started using personal computers, there was either no established IT infrastructure, or the established infrastructure was separate from the realm in which PCs operated. For an individual, that realm was the home, and the PC was the first computing device. (It may have been something other than an IBM PC; perhaps a Commodore C-64 or a Radio Shack TRS-80. But it was the only computer in the house.)

Companies may have had mainframe computers, or timesharing services, or even minicomputers. Some may have had no computers. For companies with no computers, the PC was the first computer. For companies with larger, "real" computers, the PC occupied a different computing area.

Mainframes and minicomputers were used for financial applications. PCs were used, initially, as replacements for typewriters and word processing systems. Over time we expanded the role of the PC into a computing workstation, but they were still isolated from each other and processing data that was not on the mainframe.

PCs and their applications could grow without interference from the high priests of the mainframe. The mainframe programmers and system analysts were busy with "real" business applications and not concerned with fancy electric typewriters. (And as long as PCs were fancy electric typewriters, the mainframe programmers and analysts were right to ignore them.)

PC applications grew, in size and number. Eventually they started doing "real" work. And shortly after we used PCs to do real business work, we wanted to share data with other PCs and other systems -- such as those that ran on mainframes.

That desire lead to a large change in technology. We moved away from the mainframe model of central processing with simple terminals. We looked for ways to bridge the "islands of automation" that PCs made. We built networking for PCs, scavenging technologies and creating a few. We connected PCs to other PCs. We connected PCs to minicomputers. We connected PCs to mainframes.

Our connections were not limited to hardware and low-level file transfers. We wanted to connect a PC application to a mainframe application. We wanted to exchange information, despite PCs using ASCII and mainframes using EBCDIC.

After decades of research, experiment, and work, we arrived at our current model of connected computing. Today we use mostly PCs and servers, with mainframes performing key functions. We have the hardware and networks. We have character sets (UNICODE, usually) and protocols to exchange data reliably.

It is at this point that tablets arrive on the scene.

Where PCs had a wide open field with little oversight, tablets come to the table with a well-define infrastructure, technically and bureaucratically. The tablet does not replace a stand-alone device like a typewriter; it replaces (or complements) a connected PC. The tablet does not have new applications of its own; it performs the same functions as PCs.

In some ways, the existing infrastructure makes it easy for tablets to fit in. Our networking is reliable, flexible, and fast. Tablets can "plug in" to the network quickly and easily.

But tablets have a harder job than PCs. The "bureaucracy" ignored PCs when they arrived; it is not ignoring tablets. The established IT support groups define rules for tablets to follow, standards for them to meet. Even the purchasing groups are aware of tablets; one cannot sneak a tablet into an organization below the radar.

Another challenge is the connectedness of applications. Our systems talk to each other, sending and receiving data as they need it. Sometimes this is through plain files, somethings through e-mail, and sometimes directly. To be useful, tablets must send and receive data to those systems. They cannot be a stand-alone device. (To be fair, a stand-alone PC with no network connection would be a poor fit in today's organizations too.)

But the biggest challenge is probably our mindset. We think of tablets as small, thin, mouseless PCs, and that is a mistake. Tablets are small, they are thin, and they are mouseless. But they are not PCs.

PCs are much better for the composition of data, especially text. Tablets are better for the collection of certain types of data (photographs, location) and the presentation of data. These are two different spheres of automation.

We need new ideas for tablets, new approaches to computation and new expectations of systems. We need to experiment with tablets, to let these new ideas emerge and prove themselves. I fully expect that most new ideas will fail. A few will succeed.

Forcing tablets into the system designed for PCs will slow the experiments. Tablets must "be themselves". The challenge is to change our bureaucracy and let that happen.

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.

The revulsion of old equipment

As a newbie programmer back in the dawn of the PC era, I joined other PC programmers in a general disdain of the IBM mainframes. We were young and arrogant. We were a elitist in our view of hardware: we considered the PC sleek and modern, the mainframe to be antiquated. Most of all, we looked on mainframe hardware as monstrous. Everything about mainframes was a grotesque, oversized ancestor of PC hardware, from the display terminals (the IBM 3270 was a behemoth) to the processor units (refrigerators) to even the cables that connected devices. Yes they worked, and yes people used them but I could not imagine anyone wanting to use such equipment.

We were also elitist in our view of software, but that is not important for this post.

Much of the IBM mainframe was designed in the System/360, the first general-purpose computer from IBM. It was introduced in 1964, seventeen years prior to the IBM PC in 1981. In that time, advances in technology shrank most devices, from processors to disk drives. The IBM PC was very different from the IBM System/360.

Yet the span from that first PC to today is almost twice the seventeen year span from System/360 to PC. Advances in technology have again shrank most devices.

Today's newbie programmers (young and possibly arrogant) must look on the aged PC design with the same revulsion that I felt for mainframe computers.

PC enthusiasts will point out that the PC has not remained static in the past thirty-plus years. Processors are more powerful, memory is significantly larger, disk drives have more capacity while becoming smaller, and the old serial and parallel connectors have been replaced with USB.

All of these are true, but one must still admit that, compared to tablets and smart phones, PCs are large, hulking monstrosities. And while they work and people use them, does anyone really want to?

The PC revolution happened because of four factors: PCs were cheap, PCs were easier to use than mainframes, the "establishment" of mainframe programmers and operators set up a bureaucracy to throttle requests from users, and PCs got the job done (for lots of little tasks).

Since that revolution, the "establishment" bureaucracy has absorbed PCs into the fold.

The tablet revolution sees tablets and smart phones that are: cheap, easier to use that PCs, outside of the establishment bureaucracy, and capable of getting the job done (for lots of little tasks).

Tablets are here to stay. The younger generation will see to that. Businesses will adopt them, just as they adopted PCs. In time, the establishment bureaucracy may absorb them.

PCs will stick around, too, just as mainframes did. They won't be the center of attention, though.

If tablets don't replace PCs, what will they do?

In my previous post I argued that tablets would not replace PCs. That position leads to an obvious question: If we keep PCs, then what will we do with tablets?

In the office, I can see tablets replacing laptops for some tasks. Instead of dragging a laptop to a meeting and fighting for power and network connections, people can easily carry tablets. The computational tasks at meetings are presentations, light note-taking, reading e-mail, and coordinating calendars. These tasks can be easily handled with tablets.

Some folks have floated the idea of eliminating the projector and displaying the presentation on attendee's tablets. (That could also help folks attending the meeting at remote locations.)

In the home, I can see tablets taking some of the tasks of PCs and laptops. The chief task: movies. I suspect music will be handled by phones, but movies need the larger screens of tablets.

Also in the home, games (at least the low-end games like "Angry Birds") will probably migrate to tablets, again because of the screen size. Books, magazines, and newspapers will be on tablets. Casual web browsing: shopping, news sites, photo management (but not heavy photo manipulation like Photoshop or GIMP).

Tablets will be less of a computing device and more of a personal assistant.

So maybe tablets do replace something. Maybe tablets replace not the PC but the PDA (the Personal Digital Assistant). Maybe tablets replace... the Palm Pilot.

The Cheapening of IT

The prices for computing equipment, over the years, have moved in one direction: down. I believe that the decrease in prices for hardware has an affect on our willingness to pay for software.

In the early 1960s, a memory expansion for the IBM 1401 provided 8K of what we today call RAM, at a price of $258,000. That was only the expansion pack of memory; the entire system cost several times that amount. With an investment of over a million dollars for hardware, an additional investment of several tens of thousands of dollars for software was quite the bargain.

In 1977, a Heathkit 8-bit microcomputer with an 8080 processor, 4K of RAM, and a cassette tape recorder/player (used for long-term storage prior to floppy disks), cost almost $1500. Software for such a computer ran from $20 (for a simple text editor) to $400 (for the Microsoft COBOL compiler).

Today, smart phone or tablet costs range from $200 to $1000. (Significantly less than the Heathkit 8-bit system, once you account for inflation.) Tablet apps can cost as much as $10. Some are more, and some are free.

What affect does this decrease in the hardware cost have on the cost of software?

Here's my theory: as the cost of hardware decreases, the amount that we are willing to pay for software also decreases. I can justify spending $400 for software when the hardware costs several times that amount. But I have a harder time spending $400 on software when the hardware costs less than that. My bias is for hardware, and I am assigning higher intrinsic value to the hardware than the software. (The reasons behind this are varied, from the physical nature of hardware to the relationship with the vendor. I'm pretty sure that one could find a Master's thesis in this line of study.)

But if a cheapening of the hardware leads to a cheapening of the software, how does that change the industry? Assuming that the theory is true, we should see downward pressure on the cost of applications. And I think that we have seen this. The typical phone and tablet app holds a retail price that is significantly less than the price for a typical desktop PC application. "Angry Birds" costs only a fraction of the price of Microsoft Office.

I expect that this cost bias will extend to PC apps that move to tablets. Microsoft Word on the Surface will be priced at under $40 (perhaps as an annual subscription) and possibly less. The initial release of the Surface includes a copy of Word, although it is restricted to non-commercial use.

I also expect that the price of desktop PC apps will fall, keeping close to the prices of tablet apps. Why spend $400 for Word on the PC when one can get it for $40 on the tablet? The reduced price of apps on one platform drives down the price of apps on all platforms.

The cheapening affect may go beyond off-the-shelf PC applications. As the prices of desktop applications fall, we may see pressure to reduce the price of server-based systems, or server components of multiplatform systems. Again, this will be driven not by technology but by psychology: I cannot justify a multi-thousand dollar cost for a server component when the corresponding desktop applications have low costs. The reduced prices of desktop applications drives down the prices of equivalent server applications. Not all server applications, mind you; only the server applications that have desktop equivalents, and only then when those desktop equivalents are reduced in price to match tablet apps.

The general reduction of prices for desktop and server applications may create difficulties for the big consulting shops. These shops charge high prices for the development of custom applications for businesses. Psychology may cause headaches for their sales teams: why should I spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a custom app (which includes clients for desktop PCs, tablets, and smartphones, of course) when I can see that powerful, competent apps are marketed for less than $10 per user? While there is value is a custom application, and while a large company may need many "downloads" for their many users, the argument for such high prices becomes difficult. Is a custom app really adding that much value?

Look for the large consulting houses to move into new technologies such as cloud and "big data" as ways of keeping their rates high. By selling these new technologies, the consulting houses can offer something that is not readily apparent in the off-the-shelf apps. (At least until their customers figure out that the off-the-shelf apps are also using cloud and "big data" tech.)

All of this leads to downward pressure on the prices of apps, whether they are simple games or complex systems. That pressure, in turn, will put downward pressure on development costs and upward pressure for productivity. Where a project was run with a project manager, three tech leads, ten developers, three testers, two analysts, and a technical writer, future projects may be run with a significantly smaller team. Perhaps the team will consist of one project manager, one tech lead, three developers, and one analyst. I'm afraid the "do more with less" exhortation will be with us for a while.

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.

The ultimate desktop OS

The phrase "ultimate desktop OS" is inspiring and attention-getting. While we might think that the "ultimate" desktop operating system is an unreachable dream, it is possible that it can exist, that it does exist, and that we have seen it.

That ultimate desktop operating system may be, in fact, Windows 7.

It is quite possible that Windows 7 is the peak of desktop operating systems. Its successor, Windows 8, is geared for tablets, not desktops. (And now you see why I have been carefully using the phrase "desktop operating system".)

Some might argue that it is not Windows 7 that is the "bestest" operating system for desktops, that the award for "best desktop operating system" should go to Windows XP, or perhaps Ubuntu Linux 10.04. These are worthy contenders for the title.

I won't quibble about the selection.

Instead, I will observe that desktop PCs have peaked, that they have reached their potential, and the future belongs to another device. (In my mind, that device is the tablet.)

Should you dispute this idea, let me ask you this: If you were to build a new app, something from scratch (not a re-hash of e-mail or word processing), would you build it for the desktop or for the tablet? I would build it for the tablet, and I think a majority of developers would agree.

And that is why I say that desktop operating systems have peaked. The future belongs to the tablet. (And the cloud, for back-end processing.)

If tablets are the future -- and I believe that they are -- then it really doesn't matter that Microsoft releases a new version of Windows for desktops. (Who gets excited when IBM releases a new version of MVS?) Yes, some folks will welcome the new version of Windows, but they will be a minority.

Instead of new versions of Windows, we will be looking for new versions of iOS and Android.

Windows 8 is like Y2K, sort of

When an author compares an event to Y2K, the reader is prudent to attend with some degree of skepticism. The Y2K problem was large and affected multiple platforms across all industries. The threat of mobile/cloud computing (if it can even be considered a threat) must be large and wide-spread to stand against Y2K.

I will say up front that the mobile/cloud platform is not a threat. If anything, it is an expansion of technical options for systems, a liberalization of solution sets.

Nor does the mobile/cloud platform have a specific implementation date. With Y2K, we had a very hard deadline for changes. (Deadlines varied across systems, with some earlier than others. For example, bank systems that calculated thirty-year mortgages were corrected in 1970.)

But the change from traditional web architectures to mobile/cloud is significant, and the transition from desktop applications to mobile/cloud is greater. The change from desktop to mobile/cloud requires nothing less than a complete re-build of the application: new UI, new data storage, new system architecture.

And it is these desktop applications (which invariably run under Microsoft Windows) that have an impending crisis. These desktop applications run on "classic" Windows, the Windows of Win32 and MFC and even .NET. These desktop applications have user interfaces that require keyboards and mice. These desktop applications assume constant and fast access to network resources.

One may wonder how these desktop applications, while they may be considered "old-fashioned" and "not of the current tech", can be a problem. After all, as long as we have Windows, we can run them, right?

Well, not quite. As long as we have Windows with Win32 and MFC and .NET (and ODBC and COM and ADO) then we can run them. But there is nothing that says Microsoft will continue to include these packages in Windows. In fact, the new WinRT offering does not include them.

Windows 8, on a desktop PC, runs in two modes: Windows 8 mode and "classic" mode. The former runs apps built for the mobile/loud platform. The latter is much like the old DOS compatibility box, included in Windows to allow us to run old, command-line programs. The "classic" Windows mode is present in Windows 8 as a measure to allow us (the customers and users of Windows) to transition our applications to the new UI.

Microsoft will continue to release new versions of Windows. I am reasonably sure that Microsoft is working on "Windows 9" even with the roll-out of Windows 8 under way. New versions of Windows will come out with new features.

At some point, the "classic Windows compatibility box" will go away. Microsoft may remove it in stages, perhaps making it a plug-in that can be added to the base Windows package. Or perhaps it will be available in only the premium versions of Windows. It is possible that, like the DOS command prompt that yet remains in Windows, the "classic Windows compatibility box" will remain in Windows -- but I doubt it. Microsoft likes the new revenue model of mobile/cloud.

And this is how I see mobile/cloud as a Y2K-like challenge. When the "classic Windows compatibility box" goes away, all of the old-style applications must go away too. You will have to either migrate to the new Windows 8 UI (and the architecture that such a change entails) or you will have to go without.

Web applications are less threatened by mobile/cloud. They run in browsers; the threat to them will be the loss of the browser. That is another topic.

If I were running a company (large or small) I would plan to move to the new world of mobile/cloud. I would start by inventorying all of my current desktop applications and forming plans to move them to mobile/cloud. That process is also another topic.

Comparing mobile/cloud to Y2K is perhaps a bit alarmist. Yet action must be taken, either now or later. My advice: start planning now.

This time it will be different... for Microsoft, for Apple, and all of us

This month saw another lackluster performance in PC sales. Some folks have indicated that this plateau of sales marks the start of the "Post-PC Era". I think that they are right, except that we will call it the "Tablet/cloud Era". We didn't call the PC Era the "Post Mainframe Era".

This new market is different for Microsoft. They enter as a challenger, not as the leader. They have entered other markets as a challenger (the XBOX is the most obvious example), but mostly they have lived in a market in which they were the top banana. Microsoft struck a fortuitous deal with IBM to supply PC-DOS for the IBM PC, won the OS/2-Windows battle, and had advantages in the development of applications for Windows. (Some have charged that Microsoft had unfair advantages, in that they had detailed technical knowledge of the inner workings of Windows and used that knowledge to build superior offerings, but that debate belongs in the 1990s.)

In the tablet/cloud market, Microsoft enters as a late-comer, after Apple and Google. Microsoft cannot rely on the automatic support of the business market. Success will depend not only on their ability to build hardware and operating systems, but to grow an ecosystem of apps and app developers.

This new market is different for Apple. They enter as the leader, not as a niche provider. Will they keep their lead? Apple has experience as the "odd guy" with a small fraction of the market. Apple is the only manufacturer from the pre-IBM PC age that is still around. Prior to the IBM PC, Apple had a large share but was not a leader. After the IBM PC, Apple kept a small share but remained a side player.

In the tablet/cloud market, Apple is a leader. They provide the most-coveted hardware. Companies copy their designs (and get sued by Apple). Success will require Apple to keep providing new, cool hardware and easy-to-use software.

For Apple and Microsoft, this time it really is different.

Punctuated evolution

Biology has the theory of "Punctuated Evolution": periods of stable configurations of species interspersed with short periods of change. I think we can see similar patterns in technology.

Let's start with the IBM PC. It arrived in 1981 and introduced a new age of computing. While preceded by a number of microcomputer systems (the Apple II, the Radio Shack TRS-80, the Commodore PET, and others) the IBM PC gained wide acceptance and set a new standard for computing hardware. The Combination of IBM PC and PC-DOS was the norm from its introduction until 1990 when Microsoft Windows replaced PC-DOS and more importantly, networks arrived.

The PC/Windows/network combination maintained dominance from 1990 until just recently. The PC mutated from a desktop device to a laptop device, and Windows changed from its early incarnation to the Windows-95 and later the Windows Vista "skin". Networks were the thing that really defined this era of computing.

We now have a new transition, from PC/Windows/network to tablet/cloud/wireless. Each transition requires new ideas for processing, storage, and user interfaces, and this transition is no exception. In the PC/DOS era, the user interface was text, the storage was local, and the processing was local. In the PC/Windows/network era, the user interface was graphical, the storage was networked (reliably), and the processing was local.

In the tablet/cloud/wireless era, the user interface is graphical and oriented to touch, the storage is networked (over an unreliable wireless network), and the processing is remote.

The tech for tablet/cloud/wireless is different from the previous age, and requires a different approach to programming and systems design. Processing in the cloud gives us more capacity; communicating over an unreliable network means that our systems must be opportunistic (process when you can) and patient (wait while you cannot).

The PC/DOS era stood for almost twenty years. So did the PC/Windows/network era. If that trend continues, the tablet/cloud/wireless era will run for about the same. Look for tablet/cloud/wireless to run from 2010 to 2030.

The death of PC brands

We're about to see the death of PC brands.

Let's be honest, do we really care about the brand of PC? Does it matter if the box is made by HP or Dell, or Asus? We merely want a box to perform computations.

Some people are sensitive to brands. Some are loyal to specific companies, but most of the sensitive-to-brand people are anti-loyal. That is, they pick certain brands of PCs and avoid them. You can identify them by their call: "I will never use a brand ABC PC again." Most likely they had a bad experience with the specific brand at some point in the past.

When choosing to buy a PC, brand, if considered at all, is usually a proxy for quality. If someone has good experiences with a specific brand, they will continue to buy that brand. If they have poor experiences, they will choose other brands.

People can make decisions along these lines because PCs are commodities. Each PC brand (except Apple equipment, which is the exception) is virtually identical. They all run Windows. They all have processors and memory to run Windows and the popular applications. I suspect that when people select a PC, they use the following criteria:

1. Will it run my software (present and future software)?
2. Is it a good value (reliable, economical)?
3. Do I like the color, size, and shape?

I think that these have always been the criteria for selecting computing equipment. But in the early PC days, there was more thought given to the first question.


With today's commodity PCs, the first question is rarely considered. It is assumed that the PC will run the desired software. A few folks with specific processing needs may be sensitive to memory and disk space, and certainly anyone provisioning a server room will ask lots of questions. But for the average consumer (and the average end-user in corporate environments) the average PC will do the job.


In contrast, the early days of PCs saw great variations in hardware. Prior to the IBM PC, each manufacturer had their own architecture and their own software base. An Apple II used a 6502 processor, was able to display color and graphics, and ran Apple DOS. A Radio Shack TRS-80 used a Z-80 (or a 68000), displayed black-and-white text and graphics, and ran TRS-DOS (or Xenix). A Commodore PET used a 6502, displayed black-and-white text and text-based graphics, and ran Microsoft BASIC (called "Commodore BASIC").


The differences between computer brands were significant. Some brands offered cassette storage, others disk. Some offered serial ports, others parallel ports, and yet others none. The keyboards varied from vendor to vendor (and even model to model).


When the hardware varied, committing to a brand committed you to a lot of other capabilities.

Things began to change when IBM introduced the PC. Actually, it was not the introduction of the IBM PC that changed the market, but the IBM PC clones. When IBM introduced their PC, it was another offering from another vendor with specific capabilities.

It was only the PC clones that made PCs commodities. Once vendors began cloning the PC design, variation between brands dropped. For a while, there was variation in included equipment and portability. (Compaq made its success with portable PC clones.)

And apparently once the consumers in the market decide that hardware is a commodity, they are loathe to return to vendor-specific equipment. IBM tried to introduce vendor-specific equipment with the PS/2, but the special features of the PS/2 were quickly adopted by other manufacturers in their traditional designs. The PS/2 keyboard and mouse connectors were adopted as standard, but the MicroChannel bus was not.

Fast-forward to today, with the rise of smartphones and tablets. Apple has it's offerings of the iPhone, iPod, and iPad. Google has pushed Android on a number of branded devices. Microsoft is pushing Windows 8 on devices, but the tablets will be brand-less; like the iPhone and iPad, the Windows 8 tablets will simply say "Microsoft". The hardware brand has been absorbed into the software, except for Android.


I expect that the brandlessness of hardware will spill over into the desktop PC world. It already has for Apple desktop devices. Full-size desktop PCs are commoditized enough, are bland enough, that the manufacturer makes no difference. (Again, this is for the average user. Users with specific needs will be conscious of the brand.) Full-size desktop PCs will lose their brand identity. Small-format desktop PCs, which can be as small as an Altoids tin or even a pack of gum, will lose their brand identity too, or perhaps never gain one to start.


The questions for selecting computing equipment will remain:

1. Will it run my software?
2. Is it a good value?
3. Do I like the color, size, and shape?

But the answer will be one of Apple, Microsoft, or Google.

Bigger than you think

The brave new world of tablets will change business. It will change not just business but the way that we do business.

Managers like to think that they make decisions that drive technology. And they do, to an extent. They buy technologies that make their businesses more efficient and more capable.

But the arrow points both ways. Not only does business drive technology, but technology drives business.

PCs changed the way we do business: In the "Mad Men" world of the 1950s business were run with typewriters, filing cabinets, secretaries; now we run businesses with desktop PCs, servers, and IT support teams.

Managers may like to think that they were in charge of that transition, but much of it was forced upon business managers. Typewriter manufacturers went out of business, filing cabinets became "old-fashioned", and secretaries became luxuries reserved for the uppermost managers. Businesses had to adopt PCs because other businesses were using them, and because previous technologies were expensive. Businesses had little choice in the matter.

The internet and the world wide web changed the way we do business: In the pre-web era companies communicated with customers by letter, phone, possibly e-mail, and in person. The web era allowed companies to communicate with web pages. Customers select their purchases without assistance from salespeople (or telephone order operators). Businesses had to adopt the web because other businesses adopted the web and customers expected it. Businesses had little choice in the matter.

Tablet computing and cloud computing will become big, for individuals and businesses. Businesses will adopt them, because they have little choice in the matter.

Individuals will stop buying desktops and start buying tablets (if they already have not done so). Most PC applications are poorly suited for the individual and home user: no one really needs an office suite with word processing and spreadsheets, and certainly not presentation software. Individuals want Facebook, Twitter, and yes, Angry Birds. They will want smartphone apps and tablet apps for banking and shopping. Businesses that provide these apps will thrive; businesses that don't will see sales suffer.

Businesses will stop buying desktops and start buying tablets because PC manufacturers will stop selling PCs. Or they will allow workers to bring tablets from home, reducing their outlays to zero. Changing to tablets will cause confusion and change for businesses, but it will not drive businesses out of existence.

The shift from desktop PCs to tablets will cause businesses and governments to change their organization. Commercial and government entities have organized their information around spreadsheets, documents, and presentations. But these organizations do not have to organize themselves that way. In the pre-PC era, they organized themselves around weekly and monthly reports from the mainframe. In the post-PC era, they will organize themselves around cloud-based services and tablet-based apps that present data in real-time.

Companies long ago outsourced non-core tasks such as payroll, the generation of electricity, and the production of paper. With tablets and cloud, they can focus their core processes and on continue to outsource non-core tasks. IT support is a likely candidate for outsourcing, as is Human Resource administration.

New companies will form to offer new forms of corporate support. (IT support and Human Resource administration are two areas that come to mind.) These new companies will offer services to other companies, much like web services offer services to other web applications.

Outsourcing is not the only change. Just as PCs allowed large companies to eliminate jobs (such as secretaries), tablets and cloud will allow companies to eliminate more jobs. I suspect that companies will keep the jobs that require creativity and outsource the jobs that consist of rote tasks. The remaining jobs will be closely tied to the performance of the company's core processes.

The brave new world of tablet computing will be different from the current world. I think it will be a better world, with clearer focus on core competencies and "value added". Some folks may find the transition uncomfortable; others will thrive.