Predictions are fun! They allow us to see into the future -- or at least claim that we can see into the future. They also allow us to step away from the usual topics and talk about almost anything we want. Who could resist making predictions?
So here are my predictions for 2019:
Programming languages: The current "market" for programming languages is fractured. There is no one language that dominates. The ten most popular languages (according to Tiobe) are Java, C, Python, C++, VB.NET, C#, JavaScript, PHP, SQL, and Objective-C. The top ten are not evenly distributed; Java and C are in a "lead group" and the remaining languages are in a second group.
O'Reilly lists Python, Java, Go, C#, Kotlin, and Rust as languages to watch for 2019. Notice that this list is different from Tiobe's "most popular" -- Rust and Kotlin show on that index in positions 34 and 36, respectively. Notably absent from O"Reilly's list are C++ and Perl.
For 2019, I predict that the market will remain fragmented. Java will remain in the lead group unless Oracle, who owns Java, does something that discourages Java development. (And even then, so many systems are currently written in Java that Java will remain in use for years. Java will be the COBOL of the 2020s: used in important business systems but not liked very much by younger developers.) C will remain in the lead group. (The popularity of C is hard to explain. But whatever C has, people like.)
Fragmentation makes life difficult for managers. Which languages should their teams use? A single leader makes the decision easy. The current market, with multiple capable languages allows for debates about development languages. An established project provides the argument of sticking with the current programming language; a new project (with no existing code) makes the decision somewhat harder. (My advice: pick a popular language that gets the job done for you. Don't worry about it being the best language. Good enough is... good enough.)
Operating systems: Unlike the "market" for programming languages, the "market" for operating systems is fairly uniform. I should say "markets": we can consider the desktop/laptop segment, the server segment, and possibly a cloud segment. For the desktop, Windows is dominant, and will remain dominant in 2019. Windows 10 is capable and especially good for large organizations who want centralized administration. MacOS is used in a number of shops, especially smaller organizations and startups, and will continue to have a modest share.
For servers, Linux dominates and will continue to dominate in 2019. Windows runs some servers, and will continue to, especially in organizations who consider themselves "Microsoft shops".
The interesting future for operating systems is the cloud segment. Cloud services run on operating systems, usually Linux or Windows, but this is changing on two fronts. The first is the hypervisor, which sits below the virtual operating system in a cloud environment; the second is containers, which sit above the virtual operating system (and which contain an application).
Hypervisors are well-understood and well established. Containers are new (well, new-ish) and not as well understood, but gaining acceptance. Between the two sits the operating system, which is coming under pressure as hypervisors and containers perform tasks that were traditionally performed by operating systems.
In the long run, hypervisors, containers, and operating systems will achieve a new equilibrium, with operating systems doing less than they have in the past. The question will not be "Which operating system for my cloud application?" but instead "Which combination of hypervisor, operating system, and container for my cloud application?". And even then, there may be large shops that use a mixture of hypervisor, operating system, and container for their applications.
Virtual reality and augmented reality: Both will remain experimental. We have yet to find a "killer app" for augmented reality, something that combines real-world and supplied visuals in a compelling application.
Cloud services: Amazon.com dominates the market, and I see little to change that. Microsoft and Google will maintain (and possibly increase) their market shares. Other players (IBM, Dell, Oracle) will remain small.
The list of services available from cloud providers is impressive and daunting. Amazon is in a difficult position; its services are less consistent than Microsoft's and Google's. Both Microsoft and Google came into the market after Amazon and developed their offerings more slowly. The result has been a smaller market share but a more consistent set of services (and, I dare say, a better experience for the customer). Amazon may change some services to make things more consistent.
Phones: Little will change in 2019. Apple and Android will remain dominant. 5G will get press and slow roll-out by carriers; look for true implementation and wide coverage in later years.
Tablets: 2019 may be the "last year of the tablet" -- at least the non-laptop convertible tablet. Tablet sales have been anemic, except for iPads, and even those are declining. Apple could introduce an innovation to the iPad which increases its appeal, but I don't see that. (I think Apple will focus on phones, watches, earphones, and other consumer devices.)
I see little interest in tablets from other manufacturers, probably due to the lack of demand by customers. As Android is the only other (major) operating system for tablets, innovation for Android tablets will have to come from Google, and I see little interest from Google in tablets. (I think Google is more interested in phones, location-based services, and advertising.)
In sum, I see 2019 as a year of "more of the same", with few or no major innovations. I suspect that the market for tech will, at the end of 2019, look very much like the market for tech at the beginning of 2019.
Showing posts with label tablets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tablets. Show all posts
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
Predictions for 2017
What will happen in the new year? Let's make some predictions!
Cloud computing and containers remain popular.
Ransomware will become more prevalent, with a few big name companies (and a number of smaller companies) suffering infections. Individuals will be affected as well. Companies may be spurred to improve their security; "traditional" malware was annoying but ransomware stops operations and costs actual money. Earlier virus programs would require effort from the support team to resolve, and that expense could be conveniently ignored by managers. But this new breed of malware requires an actual payment, and that is harder to ignore. I expect a louder cry for secure operating systems and applications, but effective changes will take time (years).
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning will be discussed. A few big players will advertise projects. They will have little effect on "the little guy", small companies, and slow-moving organizations.
Apple will continue to lead the design for laptops and phones. Laptop computers from other manufacturers will lose DVD readers and switch to USB-C (following Apple's design for the MacBook). Apple itself will look for ways to distinguish its MacBooks from laptops.
Tablet sales will remain weak. We don't know what to do with tablets, at home or in the office. They fill a niche between phones and laptops, but if you have those two you don't need a tablet. If you have a phone and are considering an additional device, the laptop is the better choice. If you have a laptop and are considering an additional device, the phone is the better choice. Tablets offer no unique abilities.
Laptop sales will remain strong. Desktop sales will decline. There is little need for a tower PC, and the prices for laptops are in line with prices for desktops. Laptops offer portability, which is good for telework or group meetings. Tower PCs offer expansion slots, which are good for... um, very little in today's offices.
Tower PCs won't die. They will remain the PC of choice for games, and for specific applications that need the processing power of GPUs. Some manufacturers may drop the desktop configurations, and the remaining manufacturers will be able to raise prices. I won't guess at who will stay in the desktop market.
Amazon.com will grow cloud services but lose market share to Microsoft and Google, who will grow at faster rates. Several small cloud providers will cease operations. If you're using a small provider of cloud services, be prepared to move.
Programming languages will continue to fracture. (Witness the decline on http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/.) The long trend has been to move away from a few dominant languages and towards a collection of mildly popular languages. This change makes life uncomfortable for managers, because there is no one "safe" language that is "the best" for corporate development. But fear not, because...
Vendor relationships will continue to define the best programming languages for your projects: Java with Oracle, C# with Microsoft, Swift with Apple. If you are a Microsoft shop, your best language is C#. (You may consider F# for special projects.) If you are developing iOS applications, your best language is Swift. For Android apps, you want Java. Managers need not worry too much about difficult decisions for programming languages.
Those are my ideas for the new year. Let's see what really happens!
Cloud computing and containers remain popular.
Ransomware will become more prevalent, with a few big name companies (and a number of smaller companies) suffering infections. Individuals will be affected as well. Companies may be spurred to improve their security; "traditional" malware was annoying but ransomware stops operations and costs actual money. Earlier virus programs would require effort from the support team to resolve, and that expense could be conveniently ignored by managers. But this new breed of malware requires an actual payment, and that is harder to ignore. I expect a louder cry for secure operating systems and applications, but effective changes will take time (years).
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning will be discussed. A few big players will advertise projects. They will have little effect on "the little guy", small companies, and slow-moving organizations.
Apple will continue to lead the design for laptops and phones. Laptop computers from other manufacturers will lose DVD readers and switch to USB-C (following Apple's design for the MacBook). Apple itself will look for ways to distinguish its MacBooks from laptops.
Tablet sales will remain weak. We don't know what to do with tablets, at home or in the office. They fill a niche between phones and laptops, but if you have those two you don't need a tablet. If you have a phone and are considering an additional device, the laptop is the better choice. If you have a laptop and are considering an additional device, the phone is the better choice. Tablets offer no unique abilities.
Laptop sales will remain strong. Desktop sales will decline. There is little need for a tower PC, and the prices for laptops are in line with prices for desktops. Laptops offer portability, which is good for telework or group meetings. Tower PCs offer expansion slots, which are good for... um, very little in today's offices.
Tower PCs won't die. They will remain the PC of choice for games, and for specific applications that need the processing power of GPUs. Some manufacturers may drop the desktop configurations, and the remaining manufacturers will be able to raise prices. I won't guess at who will stay in the desktop market.
Amazon.com will grow cloud services but lose market share to Microsoft and Google, who will grow at faster rates. Several small cloud providers will cease operations. If you're using a small provider of cloud services, be prepared to move.
Programming languages will continue to fracture. (Witness the decline on http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/.) The long trend has been to move away from a few dominant languages and towards a collection of mildly popular languages. This change makes life uncomfortable for managers, because there is no one "safe" language that is "the best" for corporate development. But fear not, because...
Vendor relationships will continue to define the best programming languages for your projects: Java with Oracle, C# with Microsoft, Swift with Apple. If you are a Microsoft shop, your best language is C#. (You may consider F# for special projects.) If you are developing iOS applications, your best language is Swift. For Android apps, you want Java. Managers need not worry too much about difficult decisions for programming languages.
Those are my ideas for the new year. Let's see what really happens!
Sunday, November 22, 2015
The Real Problem with the Surface RT
When Microsoft introduced the Surface RT, people responded with disdain. It was a Windows tablet with a limited version of Windows. The tablet could run specially-compiled applications and a few "real" Windows applications: Internet Explorer, Word, Excel, and Powerpoint.
Many folks, including Microsoft, believe that the problem with the Surface RT was that it was underpowered. It used an ARM chip, not Intel, for the processor. The operating system was not the standard Windows but Windows RT, compiled for the ARM processor and excluding the .NET framework.
Those decisions meant that the millions (billions?) of existing Windows applications could not run on the Surface RT. IE, Word, Excel, and Powerpoint ran because Microsoft built special versions of those applications.
The failure of the Surface RT was not in the design, but in the expectations of users. People, corporations, and Microsoft all expected the Surface RT to be another "center of computing" -- a device that provided computing services. It could have been -- Microsoft provided tools to develop applications for it -- but people were not willing to devote the time and effort to design, code, and test applications for an unproven platform.
The Surface RT didn't have to be a failure.
What made the Surface RT a failure was not that it was underpowered. What made it a failure was that it was overpowered.
Microsoft's design allowed for applications. Microsoft provided the core Office applications, and provided development tools. This lead to the expectation that the tablet would host applications and perform computations.
A better Surface RT would offer less. It would have the same physical design. It would have the same ARM processor. It might even include Windows RT. But it would not include Word, Excel, or Powerpoint.
Instead of those applications, it would include a browser, a remote desktop client, and SSH. The browser would not be Internet Explorer but Microsoft's new Edge browser, modified to allow for plug-ins (or extensions, or whatever we want to call them).
Instead of a general-purpose computing device, it would offer access to remote computing. The browser allows access to web sites. The remote desktop client allows access to virtual desktops on remote servers. SSH allows for access to terminal sessions, including those on GUI-less Windows servers.
Such a device would offer access to the new, cloud-based world of computing. The name "Surface RT" has been tainted for marketing purposes, so a new name is needed. Perhaps something like "Surface Edge" or "Edgebook" or "Slab" (given Microsoft's recent fascination with four-character names like "Edge", "Code", and "Sway").
A second version could allow for apps, much like a Windows phone or iPhone or Android tablet.
I see corporations using the "Edgebook" because of its connectivity with Windows servers. I'm not sure that individual consumers would want one, but then Microsoft is focussed on the corporate market.
It just might work.
Many folks, including Microsoft, believe that the problem with the Surface RT was that it was underpowered. It used an ARM chip, not Intel, for the processor. The operating system was not the standard Windows but Windows RT, compiled for the ARM processor and excluding the .NET framework.
Those decisions meant that the millions (billions?) of existing Windows applications could not run on the Surface RT. IE, Word, Excel, and Powerpoint ran because Microsoft built special versions of those applications.
The failure of the Surface RT was not in the design, but in the expectations of users. People, corporations, and Microsoft all expected the Surface RT to be another "center of computing" -- a device that provided computing services. It could have been -- Microsoft provided tools to develop applications for it -- but people were not willing to devote the time and effort to design, code, and test applications for an unproven platform.
The Surface RT didn't have to be a failure.
What made the Surface RT a failure was not that it was underpowered. What made it a failure was that it was overpowered.
Microsoft's design allowed for applications. Microsoft provided the core Office applications, and provided development tools. This lead to the expectation that the tablet would host applications and perform computations.
A better Surface RT would offer less. It would have the same physical design. It would have the same ARM processor. It might even include Windows RT. But it would not include Word, Excel, or Powerpoint.
Instead of those applications, it would include a browser, a remote desktop client, and SSH. The browser would not be Internet Explorer but Microsoft's new Edge browser, modified to allow for plug-ins (or extensions, or whatever we want to call them).
Instead of a general-purpose computing device, it would offer access to remote computing. The browser allows access to web sites. The remote desktop client allows access to virtual desktops on remote servers. SSH allows for access to terminal sessions, including those on GUI-less Windows servers.
Such a device would offer access to the new, cloud-based world of computing. The name "Surface RT" has been tainted for marketing purposes, so a new name is needed. Perhaps something like "Surface Edge" or "Edgebook" or "Slab" (given Microsoft's recent fascination with four-character names like "Edge", "Code", and "Sway").
A second version could allow for apps, much like a Windows phone or iPhone or Android tablet.
I see corporations using the "Edgebook" because of its connectivity with Windows servers. I'm not sure that individual consumers would want one, but then Microsoft is focussed on the corporate market.
It just might work.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Tablet sales
A recent article on ZDnet.com blamed recent lackluster sales of iPads on... earlier iPads. This seems wrong.
The author posed this premise: Apple's iOS 9 runs on just about every iPad (it won't run on the very first iPad model, but it runs on the others) and therefore iPad owners have little incentive to upgrade. iPad owners behave differently from iPhone owners, in that they (the iPad owners) hold on to their tablets longer than people hang on to their phones.
The latter part of that premise may be true. I suspect that tablet owners do upgrade less frequently that phone owners (for Apple or Android camps). While tablets are typically less expensive than phones, iPads are pricey, and iPad owners may wish to delay an expensive purchase. My belief is that people replace phones more readily than tablets because of the relative size of phones and tablets. Tablets, being larger, are viewed as more valuable. The psychology drives us to replace phones faster than tablets. But that's a pet theory.
Getting back to the ZDnet article: There is a hidden assumption in the author's argument. He assumes that the only people buying iPads are previous iPad owners. In other words, everyone who is going to buy an iPad has already purchased one, and the only sames for iPads will be upgrades as a customer replaces an iPad with an iPad. (Okay, perhaps not "only". Perhaps "majority". Perhaps it's "most people buying iPads are iPad owners.)
This is a problem for Apple. It means that they have, rather quickly, reached market saturation. It also means that they are not converting people from Android tablets to Apple tablets.
I don't know the numbers for iPad sales and new sales versus upgrades. I don't know the corresponding numbers for Android tablets either.
But if the author's assumption is correct, and the tablet market has become saturated, it could make things difficult for Apple, Google (Alphabet?), and ... Microsoft. Microsoft is trying to get into the tablet market (in hardware and in software alone). A saturated market would mean little interest in Windows tablets.
Or maybe it means that Microsoft will be forced to offer something new, some service that compels one to look seriously at a Windows tablet.
The author posed this premise: Apple's iOS 9 runs on just about every iPad (it won't run on the very first iPad model, but it runs on the others) and therefore iPad owners have little incentive to upgrade. iPad owners behave differently from iPhone owners, in that they (the iPad owners) hold on to their tablets longer than people hang on to their phones.
The latter part of that premise may be true. I suspect that tablet owners do upgrade less frequently that phone owners (for Apple or Android camps). While tablets are typically less expensive than phones, iPads are pricey, and iPad owners may wish to delay an expensive purchase. My belief is that people replace phones more readily than tablets because of the relative size of phones and tablets. Tablets, being larger, are viewed as more valuable. The psychology drives us to replace phones faster than tablets. But that's a pet theory.
Getting back to the ZDnet article: There is a hidden assumption in the author's argument. He assumes that the only people buying iPads are previous iPad owners. In other words, everyone who is going to buy an iPad has already purchased one, and the only sames for iPads will be upgrades as a customer replaces an iPad with an iPad. (Okay, perhaps not "only". Perhaps "majority". Perhaps it's "most people buying iPads are iPad owners.)
This is a problem for Apple. It means that they have, rather quickly, reached market saturation. It also means that they are not converting people from Android tablets to Apple tablets.
I don't know the numbers for iPad sales and new sales versus upgrades. I don't know the corresponding numbers for Android tablets either.
But if the author's assumption is correct, and the tablet market has become saturated, it could make things difficult for Apple, Google (Alphabet?), and ... Microsoft. Microsoft is trying to get into the tablet market (in hardware and in software alone). A saturated market would mean little interest in Windows tablets.
Or maybe it means that Microsoft will be forced to offer something new, some service that compels one to look seriously at a Windows tablet.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Tablets for consumption, cloudbooks for creation
Tablets and cloudbooks are mobile devices of the mobile/cloud computing world.
Tablets are small, flat, keyboardless devices with a touchscreen, processor, storage, and an internet connection. The Apple iPad is possibly the most well-known tablet. The Microsoft Surface is possibly the second most well-known. Other manufacturers offer tablets with Google's Android.
Cloudbooks are light, thin laptops. They contain a screen (possibly a touchscreen, but touch isn't a requirement), processor, storage, and internet connection, and the one thing that separates them from tablets: a keyboard. They look and feel like laptop computers, yet they are not laptops in the usual sense. They have a low-end processor and a custom operating system designed to do one thing: run a browser. The most well-known cloudbook computers are Google's Chromebooks.
I'm using the term "cloudbook" here to refer to the generic lightweight, low-powered, single-purpose laptop computer. A simple search shows that the phrase "cloudbook" (or a variation on capitalization) has been used for specific products, including an x86 laptop, a brand of e-books, a cloud services broker, and even an accounting system! Acer uses the name "cloudbook" for its, um, cloudbook devices.
Tablets and cloudbooks serve two different purposes. Tablets are designed for the consumption of data and cloudbooks are designed for the creation of data.
Tablets allow for the installation of apps, and there are apps for all sorts of things. Apps to play games. Apps to play music. Apps to chat with friends. Apps for e-mail (generally effective for reading e-mail and writing brief responses). Apps for Twitter. Apps for navigation.
Cloudbooks allow for the installation of apps too, although it is the browser that allows for apps and not the underlying operating system. On a Chromebook, it is Chrome that manages the apps. Google confuses the issue by listing web-based applications such as its Docs word processor and Sheets spreadsheet as "apps". The separation of web-based apps and browser-based apps is made more complex by Google's creation of duplicate apps for each environment to support off-line work. For off-line work, you must have a local (browser-based) app.
The apps for cloudbooks are oriented toward the composition of data: word processor, spreadsheet, editing photographs, and more.
I must point out that these differences are in orientation and not complete capabilities. One can consume data on a cloudbook. One can, with the appropriate tools and effort, create on a tablet. The two types of devices are not exclusive. In my view it is easier to consume on a tablet and easier to create on a cloudbook.
Tablets are already popular. I expect that cloudbooks will be popular with people who need to create and manage data. Two groups I expect to use cloudbooks are developers and system administrators. Cloudbooks are a convenient size for portability and capable enough to connect to cloud-based development services such as Cloud9, Codeanywhere, Cloud IDE, or Sourcekit.
Tablets are small, flat, keyboardless devices with a touchscreen, processor, storage, and an internet connection. The Apple iPad is possibly the most well-known tablet. The Microsoft Surface is possibly the second most well-known. Other manufacturers offer tablets with Google's Android.
Cloudbooks are light, thin laptops. They contain a screen (possibly a touchscreen, but touch isn't a requirement), processor, storage, and internet connection, and the one thing that separates them from tablets: a keyboard. They look and feel like laptop computers, yet they are not laptops in the usual sense. They have a low-end processor and a custom operating system designed to do one thing: run a browser. The most well-known cloudbook computers are Google's Chromebooks.
I'm using the term "cloudbook" here to refer to the generic lightweight, low-powered, single-purpose laptop computer. A simple search shows that the phrase "cloudbook" (or a variation on capitalization) has been used for specific products, including an x86 laptop, a brand of e-books, a cloud services broker, and even an accounting system! Acer uses the name "cloudbook" for its, um, cloudbook devices.
Tablets and cloudbooks serve two different purposes. Tablets are designed for the consumption of data and cloudbooks are designed for the creation of data.
Tablets allow for the installation of apps, and there are apps for all sorts of things. Apps to play games. Apps to play music. Apps to chat with friends. Apps for e-mail (generally effective for reading e-mail and writing brief responses). Apps for Twitter. Apps for navigation.
Cloudbooks allow for the installation of apps too, although it is the browser that allows for apps and not the underlying operating system. On a Chromebook, it is Chrome that manages the apps. Google confuses the issue by listing web-based applications such as its Docs word processor and Sheets spreadsheet as "apps". The separation of web-based apps and browser-based apps is made more complex by Google's creation of duplicate apps for each environment to support off-line work. For off-line work, you must have a local (browser-based) app.
The apps for cloudbooks are oriented toward the composition of data: word processor, spreadsheet, editing photographs, and more.
I must point out that these differences are in orientation and not complete capabilities. One can consume data on a cloudbook. One can, with the appropriate tools and effort, create on a tablet. The two types of devices are not exclusive. In my view it is easier to consume on a tablet and easier to create on a cloudbook.
Tablets are already popular. I expect that cloudbooks will be popular with people who need to create and manage data. Two groups I expect to use cloudbooks are developers and system administrators. Cloudbooks are a convenient size for portability and capable enough to connect to cloud-based development services such as Cloud9, Codeanywhere, Cloud IDE, or Sourcekit.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Hardwiring the operating system
I tend to think of computers as consisting of four conceptual parts: hardware, operating system, application programs, and my data.
I know that computers are complex objects, and each of these four components has lots of subcomponents. For example, the hardware is a collection of processor, memory, video card, hard drive, ports to external devices, and "glue" circuitry to connect everything. (And even that is omitting some details.)
These top-level divisions, while perhaps not detailed, are useful. They allow me to separate the concerns of a computer. I can think about my data without worrying about the operating system. I can consider application programs without bothering with hardware.
It wasn't always this way. Oh, it was for personal computers, even those from the pre-IBM PC days. Hardware like the Altair was sold as a computing box with no operating system or software. Gary Kildall at Digital Research created CP/M to run on the various hardware available and designed it to have a dedicates unit for interfacing with hardware. (That dedicated unit was the Basic Input-Output System, or 'BIOS'.)
It was the very early days of computers that saw a close relationship between hardware, software, and data. Very early computers had no operating systems (operating systems themselves designed to separate the application program from the hardware). Computers were specialized devices, tailored to the task.
IBM's System/360 is recognized as the first general computer: a single computer that could be programmed for different applications, and used within an organization for multiple purposes. That computer began us on the march to separate hardware and software.
The divisions are not simply for my benefit. Many folks who work to design computers, build applications, and provide technology services find these divisions useful.
The division of computers into these four components allows for any one of the components to be swapped out, or moved to another computer. I can carry my documents and spreadsheets (data) from my PC to another one in the office. (I may 'carry' them by sending them across a network, but you get the idea.)
I can replace a spreadsheet application with a different spreadsheet application. Perhaps I replace Excel 2010 with Excel 2013. Or maybe change from Excel to another PC-based spreadsheet. The new spreadsheet software may or may not read my old data, so the interchangeability is not perfect. But again, you get the idea.
More than half a century later, we are still separating computers into hardware, operating system, application programs, and data.
And that may be changing.
I know that computers are complex objects, and each of these four components has lots of subcomponents. For example, the hardware is a collection of processor, memory, video card, hard drive, ports to external devices, and "glue" circuitry to connect everything. (And even that is omitting some details.)
These top-level divisions, while perhaps not detailed, are useful. They allow me to separate the concerns of a computer. I can think about my data without worrying about the operating system. I can consider application programs without bothering with hardware.
It wasn't always this way. Oh, it was for personal computers, even those from the pre-IBM PC days. Hardware like the Altair was sold as a computing box with no operating system or software. Gary Kildall at Digital Research created CP/M to run on the various hardware available and designed it to have a dedicates unit for interfacing with hardware. (That dedicated unit was the Basic Input-Output System, or 'BIOS'.)
It was the very early days of computers that saw a close relationship between hardware, software, and data. Very early computers had no operating systems (operating systems themselves designed to separate the application program from the hardware). Computers were specialized devices, tailored to the task.
IBM's System/360 is recognized as the first general computer: a single computer that could be programmed for different applications, and used within an organization for multiple purposes. That computer began us on the march to separate hardware and software.
The divisions are not simply for my benefit. Many folks who work to design computers, build applications, and provide technology services find these divisions useful.
The division of computers into these four components allows for any one of the components to be swapped out, or moved to another computer. I can carry my documents and spreadsheets (data) from my PC to another one in the office. (I may 'carry' them by sending them across a network, but you get the idea.)
I can replace a spreadsheet application with a different spreadsheet application. Perhaps I replace Excel 2010 with Excel 2013. Or maybe change from Excel to another PC-based spreadsheet. The new spreadsheet software may or may not read my old data, so the interchangeability is not perfect. But again, you get the idea.
More than half a century later, we are still separating computers into hardware, operating system, application programs, and data.
And that may be changing.
I have several computing devices. I have a few PCs, including one laptop I use for my development work and e-mail. I have a smart phone, the third I have owned. I have a bunch of tablets.
For my PCs, I have installed different operating systems and changed them over time. The one Windows PC started with Windows 7. I upgraded it to Windows 8 and it now runs Windows 8.1. My Linux PCs have all had different releases of Ubuntu, and I expect to update them with the next version of Ubuntu. Not only do I get major versions, but I receive minor updates frequently.
But the phones and tablets are different. The phones (an HTC and two Samsung phones) ran a single operating system since I took them out of the box. (I think one of them got an update.) On of my tablets is an old Viewsonic gTablet running Android 2.2. There is no update to a later version of Android -- unless I want to 'root' the tablet and install another variant of Android like Cyanogen.
PCs get new versions of operating systems (and updates to existing versions). Tablets and phones get updates for applications, but not for operating systems. At least nowhere near as frequently as PCs.
And I have never considered (seriously) changing the operating system on a phone or tablet.
Part of this change is due, I believe, to the change in administration. We who own PCs administer the PC and decide when to update software. But we who think we own phones and tablets do *not* administer the tablet. We do not decide when to update applications or operating systems. (Yes, there are options to disable or defer updates, in Android and iOS.)
It is the equipment supplier, or the cell service provider, who decides to update operating systems on these devices. And they have less incentive to update the operating system than we do. (I suspect updates to operating systems generate a lot of calls from customers, either because they are confused or the update broke some functionality.)
So I see the move to smart phones and tablets, and its corresponding shift of administration from user to provider, as a step in synchronizing hardware and operating system. And once hardware and operating system are synchronized, they are not two items but one. We may, in the future, see operating systems baked in to devices with no (or limited) ways to update them. Operating systems may be part of the device, burned into a ROM.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Mobile devices may always be independent from corporate bureaucracy
The mobile revolution is different from the PC revolution.
The PC revolution saw the IBM PC adopted as the standard for personal computing. It was adopted by businesses and consumers, but most spending was from businesses.
The mobile revolution, in contrast, is driven by consumers. Individuals are buying smart phones and tablets. Businesses may be purchasing some mobile devices, but the bulk of the spending is on the consumer side.
Why is this distinction important?
To answer that, let's look at PCs and their history. Personal computers in corporations are anything but personal. They are purchased by the corporation and controlled by the corporation. The people using PCs rarely have administrator privileges for those PCs. Instead, the ability to install software and make significant changes is governed by the local copy of Windows and configurations in a central ActiveDirectory server.
The infrastructure of ActiveDirectory and Windows group policies was not built overnight, and was not part of the original PC. The first PCs ran PC-DOS and had no administrative controls at all -- any user could do anything, see anything, and change anything. Microsoft worked on PC-DOS for IBM, then MS-DOS for non-IBM computers, then Windows, and finally server software and ActiveDirectory. It took about twenty years to create, from the introduction of the IBM PC in 1981 to the introduction of ActiveDirectory in 1999.
That work was done by Microsoft because corporations wanted it. They wanted mechanisms to control the PCs and the access to data on PCs and servers. (And even with all of that interest, it took two decades to "enterprise-ify" PCs and make them part of the bureaucracy.)
Corporations were interested in PCs from the introduction of the IBM PC. (Some corporations were interested in earlier microcomputers, but they were a minority.) Corporations were interested in PCs because PCs ran Lotus 1-2-3, the popular spreadsheet at the time.
Now let's look at mobile devices. Corporations have a mild interest in mobile devices. It is only a fraction of the interest in PCs. There is no killer app for tablets, no must-have app for smart phones. (At least, not for corporations.) It is quite possible that phones and tablets are too personal for corporations.
It is telling that the Microsoft Surface tablet, with its ready-to-use connections to ActiveDirectory, has seen little interest. For consumers, the Surface (and other Windows tablets) are more expensive and not as useful as the iPad and Android tablets. But even corporations have little interest in the Microsoft offerings.
Without corporate interest (and corporate spending), neither Apple nor Google have incentive to make their tablets "safe for the enterprise" -- that is, controlled through a central administration point. (Yes, there are "mobile device management" packages, but they have little interest.)
Apple and Google will invest their efforts in other areas, such as better hardware and improved reliability of apps in their stores (and maybe higher profits).
Corporations will use tablets for small, isolated projects, if at all. I suspect most corporations view their proven and familiar desktops and laptops as sufficient, with little benefit from tablets.
But all is not lost for tablets and smart phones. Some folks will use them for critical business purposes. These folks will not be the large corporations with established IT infrastructure. They will be the start-ups, the small companies who will build completely new apps to solve completely new business problems.
The PC revolution saw the IBM PC adopted as the standard for personal computing. It was adopted by businesses and consumers, but most spending was from businesses.
The mobile revolution, in contrast, is driven by consumers. Individuals are buying smart phones and tablets. Businesses may be purchasing some mobile devices, but the bulk of the spending is on the consumer side.
Why is this distinction important?
To answer that, let's look at PCs and their history. Personal computers in corporations are anything but personal. They are purchased by the corporation and controlled by the corporation. The people using PCs rarely have administrator privileges for those PCs. Instead, the ability to install software and make significant changes is governed by the local copy of Windows and configurations in a central ActiveDirectory server.
The infrastructure of ActiveDirectory and Windows group policies was not built overnight, and was not part of the original PC. The first PCs ran PC-DOS and had no administrative controls at all -- any user could do anything, see anything, and change anything. Microsoft worked on PC-DOS for IBM, then MS-DOS for non-IBM computers, then Windows, and finally server software and ActiveDirectory. It took about twenty years to create, from the introduction of the IBM PC in 1981 to the introduction of ActiveDirectory in 1999.
That work was done by Microsoft because corporations wanted it. They wanted mechanisms to control the PCs and the access to data on PCs and servers. (And even with all of that interest, it took two decades to "enterprise-ify" PCs and make them part of the bureaucracy.)
Corporations were interested in PCs from the introduction of the IBM PC. (Some corporations were interested in earlier microcomputers, but they were a minority.) Corporations were interested in PCs because PCs ran Lotus 1-2-3, the popular spreadsheet at the time.
Now let's look at mobile devices. Corporations have a mild interest in mobile devices. It is only a fraction of the interest in PCs. There is no killer app for tablets, no must-have app for smart phones. (At least, not for corporations.) It is quite possible that phones and tablets are too personal for corporations.
It is telling that the Microsoft Surface tablet, with its ready-to-use connections to ActiveDirectory, has seen little interest. For consumers, the Surface (and other Windows tablets) are more expensive and not as useful as the iPad and Android tablets. But even corporations have little interest in the Microsoft offerings.
Without corporate interest (and corporate spending), neither Apple nor Google have incentive to make their tablets "safe for the enterprise" -- that is, controlled through a central administration point. (Yes, there are "mobile device management" packages, but they have little interest.)
Apple and Google will invest their efforts in other areas, such as better hardware and improved reliability of apps in their stores (and maybe higher profits).
Corporations will use tablets for small, isolated projects, if at all. I suspect most corporations view their proven and familiar desktops and laptops as sufficient, with little benefit from tablets.
But all is not lost for tablets and smart phones. Some folks will use them for critical business purposes. These folks will not be the large corporations with established IT infrastructure. They will be the start-ups, the small companies who will build completely new apps to solve completely new business problems.
Monday, May 26, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, November 25, 2013
The New Aristocracy
The workplace is an interesting study for psychologists. It has many types of interactions and many types of stratifications of employees. The divisions are always based on rank; the demonstrations of rank are varied.
I worked in one companyin which rank was indicated by the type, size, and location of one's workspace. Managers were assigned offices (with doors and solid walls), senior technical people were assigned cubicles next to windows, junior technical employees were assigned cubicles without windows, and contract workers were "doubled up" in windowless cubicles.
In another company, managers were issued color monitors and non-managers were issued (cheaper) monochrome monitors.
We excel at status symbols.
The arrival of tablets (and tablet apps) gives us a new status symbol. It allows us to divide workers into those who work with keyboards and those who work without keyboards. The "new aristocracy" will be, of course, those who work without keyboards. They will be issued tablets, while the "proletariat" will continue to work with keyboards.
I don't expect that this division will occur immediately. Tablets are quite different from desktop PCs and the apps for tablets must be different from desktop apps. It will take time to adapt our current applications to the tablet.
Despite their differences, tablets are -- so far -- much better at consuming information, while PCs are better at composing information. Managers who use information to make decisions will be able to function with tablets, while employees who must prepare the information will continue to do that work on PCs.
I expect that the next big push for tablet applications will be those applications used by managers: project planning software, calendars, dashboards, and document viewers.
The new aristocracy in the office will be those who use tablets.
I worked in one companyin which rank was indicated by the type, size, and location of one's workspace. Managers were assigned offices (with doors and solid walls), senior technical people were assigned cubicles next to windows, junior technical employees were assigned cubicles without windows, and contract workers were "doubled up" in windowless cubicles.
In another company, managers were issued color monitors and non-managers were issued (cheaper) monochrome monitors.
We excel at status symbols.
The arrival of tablets (and tablet apps) gives us a new status symbol. It allows us to divide workers into those who work with keyboards and those who work without keyboards. The "new aristocracy" will be, of course, those who work without keyboards. They will be issued tablets, while the "proletariat" will continue to work with keyboards.
I don't expect that this division will occur immediately. Tablets are quite different from desktop PCs and the apps for tablets must be different from desktop apps. It will take time to adapt our current applications to the tablet.
Despite their differences, tablets are -- so far -- much better at consuming information, while PCs are better at composing information. Managers who use information to make decisions will be able to function with tablets, while employees who must prepare the information will continue to do that work on PCs.
I expect that the next big push for tablet applications will be those applications used by managers: project planning software, calendars, dashboards, and document viewers.
The new aristocracy in the office will be those who use tablets.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
The killer app for Microsoft Surface is collaboration
People brought PCs into the office because PCs let people become more effective. The early days were difficult, as we struggled with them. We didn't know how to use PCs well, and software was difficult to use.
Eventually, we found the right mix of hardware and software. Windows XP was powerful enough to be useful for corporations and individuals, and it was successful. (And still is.)
Now, people are struggling with tablets. We don't know how to use them well -- especially in business. But our transition from PC to tablet will be more difficult than the transition from typewriter to PC.
Apple and Google built a new experience, one oriented for consumers, into the iPad and Android tablet. They left the desktop experience behind and started fresh.
Microsoft, in targeting the commercial market, delivered word processing and spreadsheets. But the tablet versions of Word and Excel are poor cousins to their desktop versions. Microsoft has an uphill battle to convince people to switch -- even for short periods -- from the desktop to the tablet for word processing and spreadsheets.
In short, Apple and Google have green fields, and Microsoft is competing with its own applications. For the tablet, Microsoft has to go beyond the desktop experience. Word processing and spreadsheets are not enough; it has to deliver something more. It needs a "killer app", a compelling use for tablets.
I have a few ideas for compelling office applications:
The shift is a one from individual work to collaborative work. Develop apps to help not individuals but teams become more effective.
If Microsoft can let people use tablets to work with other people, they will have something.
Eventually, we found the right mix of hardware and software. Windows XP was powerful enough to be useful for corporations and individuals, and it was successful. (And still is.)
Now, people are struggling with tablets. We don't know how to use them well -- especially in business. But our transition from PC to tablet will be more difficult than the transition from typewriter to PC.
Apple and Google built a new experience, one oriented for consumers, into the iPad and Android tablet. They left the desktop experience behind and started fresh.
Microsoft, in targeting the commercial market, delivered word processing and spreadsheets. But the tablet versions of Word and Excel are poor cousins to their desktop versions. Microsoft has an uphill battle to convince people to switch -- even for short periods -- from the desktop to the tablet for word processing and spreadsheets.
In short, Apple and Google have green fields, and Microsoft is competing with its own applications. For the tablet, Microsoft has to go beyond the desktop experience. Word processing and spreadsheets are not enough; it has to deliver something more. It needs a "killer app", a compelling use for tablets.
I have a few ideas for compelling office applications:
- calendars and scheduling
- conference calls and video calls
- presentations not just on projectors but device-to-device
- multi-author documents and spreadsheets
The shift is a one from individual work to collaborative work. Develop apps to help not individuals but teams become more effective.
If Microsoft can let people use tablets to work with other people, they will have something.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Tablets will not replace PCs -- at least not as you think they might
Tablets have seen quite a bit of popularity, and some people now ask: When will tablets replace PCs?
To which I answer: They won't, at least not in the way most folks think of replacing PCs.
The issue of replacement is subtle.
To examine the subtleties, let's review a previous revolution that saw one form of technology replaced by another.
Did PCs replace mainframes? In one sense, they have, yet in another they have not. PCs are the most common form of computing, used in businesses, schools, and homes. Yet mainframes remain, processing millions of transactions each day.
When microcomputers were first introduced, one could argue that PCs had replaced mainframes as the dominant form of computing. Even before the IBM PC, in the days of the Apple II and the Radio Shack TRS-80, there were more microcomputers than mainframes. (I don't have numbers, but I am confident that several tens of thousands of microcomputers were sold. I'm also confident that there were fewer than several tens of thousands of mainframes at the time.)
But sheer numbers is not an accurate measure. For one thing, a mainframe serves multiple users and a PC serves one. So maybe PCs replaced mainframes when the number of PC users exceeded the number of mainframe users.
The measure of users is not particularly clear, either. Many users of microcomputers were hobbyists, not serious day-in-day-out users. And certainly mainframes processed more business transactions than the pre-internet PCs.
Maybe we should measure not the number of devices or the number of users, but instead the conversations about the devices. When did people talk about PCs more than mainframes? We cannot count tweets or blog posts (neither had been invented) but we can look at magazines and publications. Prior to the IBM PC, most technology magazines discussed mainframes (or minicomputers) and ignored the microcomputer systems. There were some microcomputer-specific magazines, the most popular one being BYTE.
The introduction of the IBM PC generated a number of magazines. At this point the magazine content shifted towards PCs.
There are other measures: number of want ads, number of conferences and expos, number of attendees at conferences and expos. We could argue for quite some time about the appropriate metric.
But I think that the notion of one generation of computing technology replacing another is a slippery one, and perhaps a false one. I'm not sure that one technology really replaces an earlier one.
Consider: We have advanced from the mainframe era to the PC era, and then to the networked PC era, and then to the internet era, and now we are venturing into the mobile/cloud era. Each successive "wave" of technology has not replaced the previous "wave", but instead expanded the IT sphere. PCs did not replace mainframes; they replaced typewriters and dedicated word-processing systems and expanded the computational realm with spreadsheets. The web did not replace PCs, it expanded the computation realm with on-line transactions -- many of which are handled with back-end systems running on... mainframes!
A new technology expands our horizons.
Tablets will expand our computing realm. They will enable us to do new things. Some tasks of today that are handled by PCs will be handled by tablets, but not all of them.
So I don't see tablets replacing PCs in the coming year. Or the next year. Or the year after.
But if you insist on a metric, some measurement to clearly define the shift from PC to tablet, I suggest that we look at not numbers or users or apps but conversations. The number people who talk about tablets, compared to the number of people who talk about PCs. I would include blogs, tweets, web articles, advertisements, podcasts, and books as part of the conversation. You may want to include a few more.
Whatever you pick, look at them, take some measurements, and mark when the lines cross.
And then blog or tweet about it.
To which I answer: They won't, at least not in the way most folks think of replacing PCs.
The issue of replacement is subtle.
To examine the subtleties, let's review a previous revolution that saw one form of technology replaced by another.
Did PCs replace mainframes? In one sense, they have, yet in another they have not. PCs are the most common form of computing, used in businesses, schools, and homes. Yet mainframes remain, processing millions of transactions each day.
When microcomputers were first introduced, one could argue that PCs had replaced mainframes as the dominant form of computing. Even before the IBM PC, in the days of the Apple II and the Radio Shack TRS-80, there were more microcomputers than mainframes. (I don't have numbers, but I am confident that several tens of thousands of microcomputers were sold. I'm also confident that there were fewer than several tens of thousands of mainframes at the time.)
But sheer numbers is not an accurate measure. For one thing, a mainframe serves multiple users and a PC serves one. So maybe PCs replaced mainframes when the number of PC users exceeded the number of mainframe users.
The measure of users is not particularly clear, either. Many users of microcomputers were hobbyists, not serious day-in-day-out users. And certainly mainframes processed more business transactions than the pre-internet PCs.
Maybe we should measure not the number of devices or the number of users, but instead the conversations about the devices. When did people talk about PCs more than mainframes? We cannot count tweets or blog posts (neither had been invented) but we can look at magazines and publications. Prior to the IBM PC, most technology magazines discussed mainframes (or minicomputers) and ignored the microcomputer systems. There were some microcomputer-specific magazines, the most popular one being BYTE.
The introduction of the IBM PC generated a number of magazines. At this point the magazine content shifted towards PCs.
There are other measures: number of want ads, number of conferences and expos, number of attendees at conferences and expos. We could argue for quite some time about the appropriate metric.
But I think that the notion of one generation of computing technology replacing another is a slippery one, and perhaps a false one. I'm not sure that one technology really replaces an earlier one.
Consider: We have advanced from the mainframe era to the PC era, and then to the networked PC era, and then to the internet era, and now we are venturing into the mobile/cloud era. Each successive "wave" of technology has not replaced the previous "wave", but instead expanded the IT sphere. PCs did not replace mainframes; they replaced typewriters and dedicated word-processing systems and expanded the computational realm with spreadsheets. The web did not replace PCs, it expanded the computation realm with on-line transactions -- many of which are handled with back-end systems running on... mainframes!
A new technology expands our horizons.
Tablets will expand our computing realm. They will enable us to do new things. Some tasks of today that are handled by PCs will be handled by tablets, but not all of them.
So I don't see tablets replacing PCs in the coming year. Or the next year. Or the year after.
But if you insist on a metric, some measurement to clearly define the shift from PC to tablet, I suggest that we look at not numbers or users or apps but conversations. The number people who talk about tablets, compared to the number of people who talk about PCs. I would include blogs, tweets, web articles, advertisements, podcasts, and books as part of the conversation. You may want to include a few more.
Whatever you pick, look at them, take some measurements, and mark when the lines cross.
And then blog or tweet about it.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
BYOD can be easy with tablets
The "bring your own device" movement has caused quite a bit of heartburn among the corporate IT and security folks. More than is necessary, I think.
For those unfamiliar with the term "bring your own devices" (BYOD), it means this: employees select their own devices, bring them to the office, and use them for work. Such a notion causes panic for IT. It upsets the well-balanced apple cart of company-supplied PCs and laptops. Corporations have invested in large efforts to minimize the costs (purchase costs and support costs) of PCs and laptops. If employees were allowed to bring their own hardware, the following would happen (in the thinking of the corporate cost-minimizers):
And in the minds of IT security:
But these ideas are caused by misconceptions. The first is that employees want to bring their own PCs (or laptops). But employees don't. (Or at least not the folks with whom I have spoken.) Employees want to bring cell phones and tablets, not laptops and certainly not desktop PCs.
The second misconception is that smartphones and tablets are the same as PCs, except smaller. This is also false. Yes, smartphones and tablets have processors and memory and operating systems, just like PCs (and mainframes, if you want to get technical). But we use tablets and smartphones differently than we use PCs and laptops.
We use laptops and PCs as members of a network with shared resources. These laptops and PCs are granted access to various network resources (printers, NAS units, databases, etc.) based on the membership of the PC (or laptop) within a domain and the membership of the logged-in user of domain-controlled groups. The membership of the PC within a domain gives it certain privileges, and these privileges can create vectors for malware.
Smartphones and tablets are different. We don't make them members of a domain. They are much closer to a browser on a home PC, used for shopping or online banking. My bank allows me to sign on, view balances, pay bills, and request information, all without being part of their domain or their security network.
How is this possible? I'm sure that banks (and other companies) have security policies that specify that only corporate-owned equipment can be connected to the corporate-owned network. I'm also sure that they have lots of customers, some of whom have infected PCs. Yet I can connect to their computers with my non-approved, non-certified, non-domained laptop and perform work.
The arrangement works because my PC is never directly connected to their network, and my work is limited to the capabilities of the banking web pages. Once I sign in, I have a limited set of possibilities, not the entire member-of-a-network smorgasbord.
We should think of smartphones and tablets as devices that can run apps, not as small PCs that are members of a domain. Let the devices run apps that connect to back-end servers; let those servers offer a limited set of functions. In other words, convert all business applications to smartphone apps.
I recognize that changing the current (large) suite of business applications to smartphone apps is a daunting task. Lots of applications have been architected for large, multi-window screens. Many business processes assume that uses can store files on their own PCs. Moving these applications and processes to smartphone apps (or tablet apps) requires thought, planning, and expertise. It is a large job, larger than installing "mobile device management" packages and added new layers of security bureaucracy for mobile devices.
A large job, yet a necessary one. Going the route of "device management" locks us into the existing architecture of domain-controlled devices. In the current scheme, all new devices and innovations must be added to the model of centralized security.
Better to keep security through user authentication and isolate corporate hardware from the user hardware. Moving applications and business processes to tablet apps, separating the business task from the underlying hardware, gives us flexibility and freedom to move to other devices in the future.
And that is how we can get to "bring your own device".
For those unfamiliar with the term "bring your own devices" (BYOD), it means this: employees select their own devices, bring them to the office, and use them for work. Such a notion causes panic for IT. It upsets the well-balanced apple cart of company-supplied PCs and laptops. Corporations have invested in large efforts to minimize the costs (purchase costs and support costs) of PCs and laptops. If employees were allowed to bring their own hardware, the following would happen (in the thinking of the corporate cost-minimizers):
- Lots of employees would have problems connecting to the company network, therefore they would call the help desk and drive up support costs
- Employee-selected hardware would vary from the corporate standard, increase the number of hardware and software combinations, and drive up support costs
And in the minds of IT security:
- Employee-selected hardware would be vulnerable to viruses and other malware, allowing such things behind the corporate firewall
But these ideas are caused by misconceptions. The first is that employees want to bring their own PCs (or laptops). But employees don't. (Or at least not the folks with whom I have spoken.) Employees want to bring cell phones and tablets, not laptops and certainly not desktop PCs.
The second misconception is that smartphones and tablets are the same as PCs, except smaller. This is also false. Yes, smartphones and tablets have processors and memory and operating systems, just like PCs (and mainframes, if you want to get technical). But we use tablets and smartphones differently than we use PCs and laptops.
We use laptops and PCs as members of a network with shared resources. These laptops and PCs are granted access to various network resources (printers, NAS units, databases, etc.) based on the membership of the PC (or laptop) within a domain and the membership of the logged-in user of domain-controlled groups. The membership of the PC within a domain gives it certain privileges, and these privileges can create vectors for malware.
Smartphones and tablets are different. We don't make them members of a domain. They are much closer to a browser on a home PC, used for shopping or online banking. My bank allows me to sign on, view balances, pay bills, and request information, all without being part of their domain or their security network.
How is this possible? I'm sure that banks (and other companies) have security policies that specify that only corporate-owned equipment can be connected to the corporate-owned network. I'm also sure that they have lots of customers, some of whom have infected PCs. Yet I can connect to their computers with my non-approved, non-certified, non-domained laptop and perform work.
The arrangement works because my PC is never directly connected to their network, and my work is limited to the capabilities of the banking web pages. Once I sign in, I have a limited set of possibilities, not the entire member-of-a-network smorgasbord.
We should think of smartphones and tablets as devices that can run apps, not as small PCs that are members of a domain. Let the devices run apps that connect to back-end servers; let those servers offer a limited set of functions. In other words, convert all business applications to smartphone apps.
I recognize that changing the current (large) suite of business applications to smartphone apps is a daunting task. Lots of applications have been architected for large, multi-window screens. Many business processes assume that uses can store files on their own PCs. Moving these applications and processes to smartphone apps (or tablet apps) requires thought, planning, and expertise. It is a large job, larger than installing "mobile device management" packages and added new layers of security bureaucracy for mobile devices.
A large job, yet a necessary one. Going the route of "device management" locks us into the existing architecture of domain-controlled devices. In the current scheme, all new devices and innovations must be added to the model of centralized security.
Better to keep security through user authentication and isolate corporate hardware from the user hardware. Moving applications and business processes to tablet apps, separating the business task from the underlying hardware, gives us flexibility and freedom to move to other devices in the future.
And that is how we can get to "bring your own device".
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Tablet fever? Take two tablets and call me in the morning
Microsoft announced their first tablet offerings, and the response has been positive. Enough people have submitted orders for the low-end model to sell out.
This shows two things:
First, it puts Microsoft in the top tier for the tablet market, and shows that people take Microsoft seriously. A number of manufacturers have produced tablets (Motorola, Acer, Dell, and even HP) the sales of non-Apple tablets have been tepid. By providing a tablet that sells out (even before it is for sale), Microsoft joins Apple and Google in the ranks of "suppliers of desired devices".
Second, that the interest in tablets is not an Apple phenomenon. Apple fanboys may lead the way for iPad sell-outs, but they had nothing to do with the Microsoft Surface sales. That interest is coming from a different part of the market.
Perhaps I am putting too much weight on this one event. It may be that Microsoft produced a small number of the low-end Surface tablets (the higher-end Surface tablets are still available). It may be that people are buying the Surface tablets as an experiment, or for corporate pilot projects, and the initial demand is higher than the "true market".
People (rightfully) point out the failures of Microsoft's phones, Zune, and Kin offerings. But those products never gained traction in the market, and none sold out -- much less prior to shipping.
There is interest in the Microsoft Surface tablets, and I believe all tablets. Apple and Microsoft get a lot of attention from brand recognition. Google does too, when it ships devices.
I think we are about to undergo a case of "tablet fever", with tablets becoming the most desired device. It should make for an interesting ride.
This shows two things:
First, it puts Microsoft in the top tier for the tablet market, and shows that people take Microsoft seriously. A number of manufacturers have produced tablets (Motorola, Acer, Dell, and even HP) the sales of non-Apple tablets have been tepid. By providing a tablet that sells out (even before it is for sale), Microsoft joins Apple and Google in the ranks of "suppliers of desired devices".
Second, that the interest in tablets is not an Apple phenomenon. Apple fanboys may lead the way for iPad sell-outs, but they had nothing to do with the Microsoft Surface sales. That interest is coming from a different part of the market.
Perhaps I am putting too much weight on this one event. It may be that Microsoft produced a small number of the low-end Surface tablets (the higher-end Surface tablets are still available). It may be that people are buying the Surface tablets as an experiment, or for corporate pilot projects, and the initial demand is higher than the "true market".
People (rightfully) point out the failures of Microsoft's phones, Zune, and Kin offerings. But those products never gained traction in the market, and none sold out -- much less prior to shipping.
There is interest in the Microsoft Surface tablets, and I believe all tablets. Apple and Microsoft get a lot of attention from brand recognition. Google does too, when it ships devices.
I think we are about to undergo a case of "tablet fever", with tablets becoming the most desired device. It should make for an interesting ride.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Linux in the post-PC world
The advent of tablets and mobile computing devices has generated much discussion. The post-PC world offers convenience and reliability, and a stirring of the marketplace that could re-arrange the major players.
One topic that I have not seen is the viability of Linux. Can Linux survive in the post-PC world?
The PC world was defined by hardware. The "IBM PC standard" was set in 1981, with the introduction of the IBM PC.
The post-PC world is also defined by devices. It is a world in which the primary (and possibly only) devices we use (directly) are not PCs but tablets and smartphones (and possibly a few other devices).
What does this have to do with Linux?
Linux was -- and is -- a parasite in the PC world. It runs on PCs, and we can run it on PCs for two reasons. First, Linux is written to be compatible with the PC standard. Second, the PC standard is open and we can run anything on it. (That is, we can boot any operating system.)
The tablet world is different. Apple's iPads and Microsoft's Surface tablets are locked down: they run only approved software. An iPad will boot only iOS and a Microsoft Surface tablet will boot only a signed operating system. (It doesn't have to be Windows, but it does have to be signed with a specific key.) The lock-down is not limited to iPads and Surface tablets; Amazon.com Kindles and Barnes and Noble Nooks have the same restrictions.
This lock-down in the tablet world means that we are limited in our choice of operating systems. We cannot boot anything that we want; we can boot only the approved operating systems.
(I know that one can jail-break devices. One can put a "real" Linux on a Kindle or a Nook. IPads can be broken. I suspect that Surface tablets will be broken, too. But it takes extra effort, voids your warrantee, and casts doubt over any future problem. (Is the problem caused by jail-breaking?) I suspect few people will jail-break their devices.
Linux was able to thrive because it was easy to install. In the post-PC world, it will not be easy to install Linux.
I suspect that the future of Linux will lie in the server room. Servers are quite different from consumer PCs and the consumer-oriented tablets. Servers are attended by system administrators, and they expect (and want) fine-grained control over devices. Linux meets their needs. Consumers want devices that "just work", so they choose the easy-to-use devices and that creates market pressure for iPads and Surfaces. System administrators want control, and that creates market pressure for Linux.
One topic that I have not seen is the viability of Linux. Can Linux survive in the post-PC world?
The PC world was defined by hardware. The "IBM PC standard" was set in 1981, with the introduction of the IBM PC.
The post-PC world is also defined by devices. It is a world in which the primary (and possibly only) devices we use (directly) are not PCs but tablets and smartphones (and possibly a few other devices).
What does this have to do with Linux?
Linux was -- and is -- a parasite in the PC world. It runs on PCs, and we can run it on PCs for two reasons. First, Linux is written to be compatible with the PC standard. Second, the PC standard is open and we can run anything on it. (That is, we can boot any operating system.)
The tablet world is different. Apple's iPads and Microsoft's Surface tablets are locked down: they run only approved software. An iPad will boot only iOS and a Microsoft Surface tablet will boot only a signed operating system. (It doesn't have to be Windows, but it does have to be signed with a specific key.) The lock-down is not limited to iPads and Surface tablets; Amazon.com Kindles and Barnes and Noble Nooks have the same restrictions.
This lock-down in the tablet world means that we are limited in our choice of operating systems. We cannot boot anything that we want; we can boot only the approved operating systems.
(I know that one can jail-break devices. One can put a "real" Linux on a Kindle or a Nook. IPads can be broken. I suspect that Surface tablets will be broken, too. But it takes extra effort, voids your warrantee, and casts doubt over any future problem. (Is the problem caused by jail-breaking?) I suspect few people will jail-break their devices.
Linux was able to thrive because it was easy to install. In the post-PC world, it will not be easy to install Linux.
I suspect that the future of Linux will lie in the server room. Servers are quite different from consumer PCs and the consumer-oriented tablets. Servers are attended by system administrators, and they expect (and want) fine-grained control over devices. Linux meets their needs. Consumers want devices that "just work", so they choose the easy-to-use devices and that creates market pressure for iPads and Surfaces. System administrators want control, and that creates market pressure for Linux.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, March 23, 2012
The default solution
For decades, mainframes were the default solution to computing problems. When you needed something done, you did it on a mainframe, unless you had a compelling reason for a different platform.
For decades, IBM called the shots in the computer industry. The popularity of IBM hardware gave IBM the ability to strongly influence (some might say dictate) hardware and software standards. That power diminished with the rise of personal computers (ironically helped by the IBM PC). IBM ceded the control of software to Microsoft, first with DOS and later with Windows.
For decades, PCs were the default solution to computing problems. When you needed something done, you did it on a PC, unless you had a compelling reason for a different platform.
For decades, Microsoft called the shots. The popularity of Windows and Office gave Microsoft the ability to strongly influence (some might say dictate) hardware and software standards. That power diminished with the rise of hand-held computers (specifically iPods and iPhones). Microsoft ceded the market to Apple, after several failed attempts at moving Windows to hand-sized devices.
Now, smartphones and tablets are the default solution to computing problems. When you need something done, you do it on a smartphone or tablet, unless you have a compelling reason for a different platform.
The popular platforms are the default solutions, and the company with the dominant platform can set the standards and the direction of the technology. Notice that it is the popular platform that defines the default solution, not the most cost-effective or the most reliable. The default solution is defined by the market, specifically what customers are buying. It is not a democracy, but neither is it an inherited rank. A company has a leadership role because the market gives that company the role.
And the market can take away that role.
The change in the market from mainframe to PC was an expansion, not a revolution.
The events that unseated IBM were not market revolutions, in which one competitor replaced another. IBM the mainframe manufacturer was not ousted by another mainframe manufacturer.They defended themselves against competitors, but failed to expand to new markets.
The PC revolution expanded the market. (It may have killed dedicated word processing systems, but overall it expanded the market.) The new market of word processing software, spreadsheets, and even primitive databases was something that IBM did not pursue with mainframes. It is possible that IBM was unable to pursue that market, as the PCs were small, inexpensive, and purchased by people who did not have a squadron of lawyers to review purchase and support contracts.
The market expanded but mainframes stayed constant, and that allowed PCs to become the default solution.
We have a similar situation with PCs and tablets.
The smartphone revolution (along with tablets) is expanding the market. The new market of location-aware apps, easy-to-install apps, and touchscreen interfaces is a market that Microsoft is only now beginning to pursue with Windows 8 and the Metro UI, and this effort is by no means guaranteed. (Many long-time supporters of Microsoft are grumbling at Windows 8.)
The market is expanding and PCs are mostly staying constant. That allows smartphones to become the default solution.
But PCs are not simply sitting still. PCs, and more specifically, PC operating systems, are adapting the ideas of the smartphone market. Microsoft's Windows 8 is the most prominent example of this effect, with its new GUI and the new Microsoft Windows App Store. Apple's "Lion" release of OSX bring it closer to smartphone operating systems. Some Linux distributions are morphing their user interfaces to something closer to smartphones and are simplifying their package managers.
In the end, I think PCs will have a limited role. Data centers have never been fond of the tower-style units, preferring rack-mounted servers and now preferring virtual PCs running on mainframes, of all things! Home users will find that smartphones and tablets less expensive, easier to use, and good enough to get the job done. Corporate users are the last bastion of PCs, and even they are looking at smartphones and tablets in the "Bring Your Own Device" movement.
PCs won't die out. Some tasks are handled by PCs better than on tablets. (Just as some tasks are handled by mainframes better than PCs, even today.) Some people will keep them because they are "tried and true" solutions, others will be unwilling to move to different platforms. Hobbyists will keep them out of nostalgia.
But they won't be the default solution.
For decades, IBM called the shots in the computer industry. The popularity of IBM hardware gave IBM the ability to strongly influence (some might say dictate) hardware and software standards. That power diminished with the rise of personal computers (ironically helped by the IBM PC). IBM ceded the control of software to Microsoft, first with DOS and later with Windows.
For decades, PCs were the default solution to computing problems. When you needed something done, you did it on a PC, unless you had a compelling reason for a different platform.
For decades, Microsoft called the shots. The popularity of Windows and Office gave Microsoft the ability to strongly influence (some might say dictate) hardware and software standards. That power diminished with the rise of hand-held computers (specifically iPods and iPhones). Microsoft ceded the market to Apple, after several failed attempts at moving Windows to hand-sized devices.
Now, smartphones and tablets are the default solution to computing problems. When you need something done, you do it on a smartphone or tablet, unless you have a compelling reason for a different platform.
The popular platforms are the default solutions, and the company with the dominant platform can set the standards and the direction of the technology. Notice that it is the popular platform that defines the default solution, not the most cost-effective or the most reliable. The default solution is defined by the market, specifically what customers are buying. It is not a democracy, but neither is it an inherited rank. A company has a leadership role because the market gives that company the role.
And the market can take away that role.
The change in the market from mainframe to PC was an expansion, not a revolution.
The events that unseated IBM were not market revolutions, in which one competitor replaced another. IBM the mainframe manufacturer was not ousted by another mainframe manufacturer.They defended themselves against competitors, but failed to expand to new markets.
The PC revolution expanded the market. (It may have killed dedicated word processing systems, but overall it expanded the market.) The new market of word processing software, spreadsheets, and even primitive databases was something that IBM did not pursue with mainframes. It is possible that IBM was unable to pursue that market, as the PCs were small, inexpensive, and purchased by people who did not have a squadron of lawyers to review purchase and support contracts.
The market expanded but mainframes stayed constant, and that allowed PCs to become the default solution.
We have a similar situation with PCs and tablets.
The smartphone revolution (along with tablets) is expanding the market. The new market of location-aware apps, easy-to-install apps, and touchscreen interfaces is a market that Microsoft is only now beginning to pursue with Windows 8 and the Metro UI, and this effort is by no means guaranteed. (Many long-time supporters of Microsoft are grumbling at Windows 8.)
The market is expanding and PCs are mostly staying constant. That allows smartphones to become the default solution.
But PCs are not simply sitting still. PCs, and more specifically, PC operating systems, are adapting the ideas of the smartphone market. Microsoft's Windows 8 is the most prominent example of this effect, with its new GUI and the new Microsoft Windows App Store. Apple's "Lion" release of OSX bring it closer to smartphone operating systems. Some Linux distributions are morphing their user interfaces to something closer to smartphones and are simplifying their package managers.
In the end, I think PCs will have a limited role. Data centers have never been fond of the tower-style units, preferring rack-mounted servers and now preferring virtual PCs running on mainframes, of all things! Home users will find that smartphones and tablets less expensive, easier to use, and good enough to get the job done. Corporate users are the last bastion of PCs, and even they are looking at smartphones and tablets in the "Bring Your Own Device" movement.
PCs won't die out. Some tasks are handled by PCs better than on tablets. (Just as some tasks are handled by mainframes better than PCs, even today.) Some people will keep them because they are "tried and true" solutions, others will be unwilling to move to different platforms. Hobbyists will keep them out of nostalgia.
But they won't be the default solution.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
The post-spreadsheet world
The tablet/smartphone revolution changes the rules for our use of computers. We can now (easily) take them with us, they provide simple user interfaces on small displays, and data is stored on servers. This new model works poorly with spreadsheets, which want large displays, have complex user interfaces, and consider the data as their own. Spreadsheets were not designed for collaboration.
Google has done impressive work with their on-line documents and spreadsheets. I have yet to see Microsoft's on-line offerings, so I will not comment on them. But I can make some predictions.
The tablet and smartphone revolution moves us into a new realm of processing. This new model of processing builds apps from small, connected services and shares data. I think that the collision of tablets and spreadsheets will give us new tools.
Spreadsheets, at their core, are scriptable data processors. They store their data in a two-dimensional format (or three-dimensional format, if you consider multiple sheets to be a dimension). The scripts can be simple formulas, or they can be programs (in Microsoft programs they are written in VBA, in Open Office they are in Java). The ability to apply simple scripts (formulas) is what gives spreadsheets their power.
I expect that in the new world of tablets we will develop small, connectable, scriptable data processors. These processors will work with small sets of data, presenting it to users with smaller screens and also letting users change the data. They will also let users create and run (and share) scripts. And most importantly, they will connect to other data processors -- probably through web services. People will not build spreadsheets but their own custom apps, plugging together these data processors.
Add version control, identity management, and access controls (based on identity), and you will be able to build enterprise-class apps.
We may keep spreadsheets, although I expect them to change. Once mission-critical data is in the cloud, we will extend spreadsheets to pull that data and merge it into a two-dimensional grid. Enthusiastic folks may build real-time updates, bi-directional updates, round-tripping, and collaboration for multiple spreadsheet users. The spreadsheet will become a client of the data processors in the cloud.
In this scenario, Alice may be working on some figures on her tablet as she commutes to the office (she rides in a carpool) while Bob reviews those same figures in the office in his spreadsheet. No one has the master spreadsheet, no one has to worry about getting the latest version.
Google has done impressive work with their on-line documents and spreadsheets. I have yet to see Microsoft's on-line offerings, so I will not comment on them. But I can make some predictions.
The tablet and smartphone revolution moves us into a new realm of processing. This new model of processing builds apps from small, connected services and shares data. I think that the collision of tablets and spreadsheets will give us new tools.
Spreadsheets, at their core, are scriptable data processors. They store their data in a two-dimensional format (or three-dimensional format, if you consider multiple sheets to be a dimension). The scripts can be simple formulas, or they can be programs (in Microsoft programs they are written in VBA, in Open Office they are in Java). The ability to apply simple scripts (formulas) is what gives spreadsheets their power.
I expect that in the new world of tablets we will develop small, connectable, scriptable data processors. These processors will work with small sets of data, presenting it to users with smaller screens and also letting users change the data. They will also let users create and run (and share) scripts. And most importantly, they will connect to other data processors -- probably through web services. People will not build spreadsheets but their own custom apps, plugging together these data processors.
Add version control, identity management, and access controls (based on identity), and you will be able to build enterprise-class apps.
We may keep spreadsheets, although I expect them to change. Once mission-critical data is in the cloud, we will extend spreadsheets to pull that data and merge it into a two-dimensional grid. Enthusiastic folks may build real-time updates, bi-directional updates, round-tripping, and collaboration for multiple spreadsheet users. The spreadsheet will become a client of the data processors in the cloud.
In this scenario, Alice may be working on some figures on her tablet as she commutes to the office (she rides in a carpool) while Bob reviews those same figures in the office in his spreadsheet. No one has the master spreadsheet, no one has to worry about getting the latest version.
Monday, March 5, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
The end of the PC age?
Are we approaching the end of the PC age? It seems odd to see the end of the age, as I was there at the beginning. The idea that a technology should have a shorter lifespan than a human leads one to various contemplations.
But perhaps the idea is not so strange. Other technologies have come and gone: videotape recorders, hand-held calculators, Firewire, and the space shuttle come to mind. (And by "gone", I mean "used in limited quantities, if at all". The space shuttles are gone; VCRs and calculators are still in use but considered curiosities.
Personal computers are still around, of course. People use them in the office and at home. They are entrenched in the office, and I think that they will remain present for at least a decade. Home use, in contrast, will decline quickly, with personal computers replaced by game consoles, cell phones, and tablets. Computing will remain in the office and in the home.
But here's the thing: People do not think of cell phones and tablets as personal computers.
Cell phones and tablets are cool computing devices, but they are not "personal computers". Even Macbooks and iMac computers are not "personal computers". The term "PC" was strongly associated with IBM (with "clone" for other brands) and Microsoft DOS (and later, Windows).
People have come to associate the term "personal computer" with a desktop or laptop computer of a certain size and weight, of any brand, running Microsoft Windows. Computing devices in other forms, or running other operating systems, are not "personal computers": they are something else: a Macbook, a cell phone, an iPad... something. But not a PC.
Microsoft's Windows 8 offers a very different experience from the "classic Windows". I believe that this difference is enough to break the idea of a "personal computer". That is, a tablet running Windows 8 will be considered a "tablet" and not a "PC". New desktop computers with touchscreens will be considered computers, but probably not "PCs". Only the older computers with keyboards and mice (and no touchscreen) will be considered "personal computers".
Microsoft has the opportunity to brand these new touchscreen computers. I suggest that they take advantage of this opportunity. I recognize that their track record with product names has been poor ("Zune", "Kin", and the ever-awful "Bob") but they must do something.
The term "personal computer" is becoming a reference to a legacy device, to our father's computing equipment. Personal computers were once the Cool New Thing, but no more.
But perhaps the idea is not so strange. Other technologies have come and gone: videotape recorders, hand-held calculators, Firewire, and the space shuttle come to mind. (And by "gone", I mean "used in limited quantities, if at all". The space shuttles are gone; VCRs and calculators are still in use but considered curiosities.
Personal computers are still around, of course. People use them in the office and at home. They are entrenched in the office, and I think that they will remain present for at least a decade. Home use, in contrast, will decline quickly, with personal computers replaced by game consoles, cell phones, and tablets. Computing will remain in the office and in the home.
But here's the thing: People do not think of cell phones and tablets as personal computers.
Cell phones and tablets are cool computing devices, but they are not "personal computers". Even Macbooks and iMac computers are not "personal computers". The term "PC" was strongly associated with IBM (with "clone" for other brands) and Microsoft DOS (and later, Windows).
People have come to associate the term "personal computer" with a desktop or laptop computer of a certain size and weight, of any brand, running Microsoft Windows. Computing devices in other forms, or running other operating systems, are not "personal computers": they are something else: a Macbook, a cell phone, an iPad... something. But not a PC.
Microsoft's Windows 8 offers a very different experience from the "classic Windows". I believe that this difference is enough to break the idea of a "personal computer". That is, a tablet running Windows 8 will be considered a "tablet" and not a "PC". New desktop computers with touchscreens will be considered computers, but probably not "PCs". Only the older computers with keyboards and mice (and no touchscreen) will be considered "personal computers".
Microsoft has the opportunity to brand these new touchscreen computers. I suggest that they take advantage of this opportunity. I recognize that their track record with product names has been poor ("Zune", "Kin", and the ever-awful "Bob") but they must do something.
The term "personal computer" is becoming a reference to a legacy device, to our father's computing equipment. Personal computers were once the Cool New Thing, but no more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)