
The decline of PCs and the rise of smartphones and tablets was predicted in 1993 - damian2000
http://www.dodgycoder.net/2012/11/the-slow-decline-of-pcs-and-fast-rise.html
======
meaty
Lets get it right: PC _sales_ are declining and tablets are _hyped_.

PC _usage_ isn't declining. There is just no reason to upgrade any more. A
bottom end PC from 2 years ago doesn't give you anything more than a brand new
one. Our dev workstations are 3 years old and still spot on performance-wise.

Everyone I know with a tablet has a PC and uses it heavily. The tablets are
but a small diversion.

However, that is until you realise that Microsoft actually got this when they
designed Windows 8 and surface. They worked out how to provide one device
which fills both niches. Now Windows 8 and surface aren't perfect, but they
will become in time...

Then the PC is dead. Oh no it's not - it's a tablet shaped PC. Again it
evolves...

~~~
wisty
Windows 8 is like a queen sacrifice. Windows knows it's burning its bridges,
but forcing people to get used to Windows surface. People will hate it on the
desktop (because change is bad), but pick a Windows tablet because they've
already learnt (unwillingly) how to use it. I'm not saying it's a crap OS,
just different. People hate different. Once they get used to it on their PC,
it won't be different and they'll buy a Windows tablet.

Then Microsoft can roll back the interface on Windows 9 (making Metro a
secondary interface), and corporate buyers will upgrade just to get away from
Metro.

~~~
meaty
And I'm 100% happy with that. I don't like change.

My desktop, which still aims to be as NT4 like as possible:
<http://i.imgur.com/4fFLq.png>

Added Excel 97 vs Excel 2010 for an interesting discussion point as well...

~~~
orofino
I don't understand you. You're here, on a board that regularly discusses,
touts, and builds the bleeding edge, but here you are screaming form the
rooftops that you hate change...

Tablets are over-hyped like PCs were over-hyped in the 90s. They are in the
ascendency. Not because they're perfect for the work that most of us here on
HN are doing/want to do, but because they're closer to perfect for the other
95% of humans. They lack many capabilities today that will limit them from
being used in specific areas, but those reasons will dwindle over time.

Change simply for the sake of change, isn't good. However, as someone who
loves technology, when I see family and friends successfully USING technology
without fear of breaking things or feeling like an idiot? Using technology
that brings joy? That is change worth supporting.

~~~
meaty
Some justification.

Take a look at the screenshot. 5 Office versions and there is no change.
Everything works just how it did. I like this lack of change for the following
reason:

Over the space of the last 15 years, I have actually had the chance to
_accumulate knowledge_.

I'd like to see products like that which withstand that test of time, not fill
up the world with short lived fads which result in the "XYZ is shutting down"
posts you see here a lot recently. I don't want to have to throw my entire
brain's contents out every few years.

The IT industry is the only industry which you can leave with less valuable
knowledge than you started with.

The push of the bleeding edge now is churn, not progress. Name a single
startup innovation in the last 10 years that isn't either a restrictive
reinvention of something else or a landgrab or a lock in tool?

(insert a sarcastic comment on Facebook being akin to a Stasi database running
on a Soviet clone of a VAX11/780...).

For reference, I work on a product which is nearly 20 years old now and we've
slowly evolved it rather than come steaming on with all guns blazing with hype
and ended up in the trash a year later.

~~~
orofino
Question: Why does it have to be a startup's innovation?

Entire applications now live inside websites. Perhaps you view that as 'lock
in', however I can get all of mail out of gmail or dropbox.

The bloat of MS Office is certainly proof that change for the sake of change
leads down a terrible path. However, without change, we'd all still be using
the nokia 3210 instead of iPhones and iPads.

~~~
meaty
Startups are all going on about innovation yet none deliver.

Can you get _all_ of your data out of Google's systems before they shut down
your account randomly one day? That's a better question to ask?

I agree Office is bloated which is why I still use Excel 97 for a lot of
things.

Regarding the 3210 point, if you look at most "Smartphones", the 3210 is a
better phone. Better voice quality, longer battery life, more durable etc.

(Note: I have a spare 3310 I have lying around for emergencies which looks
more tempting every day...)

------
PaulHoule
This article gets some things right but it gets plenty of them wrong. In
particular, " Technically speaking, the industry is mired in hardware
standards (Intel and Motorola CISC processors) with growth rates that are
flattening out relative to the state of the art - just as the 360/3090 and VAX
architectures did."

The Motorola 68k line really did reach the end of its rope in the 1990s and
everybody from Sun to Apple to Amiga had to plan an exit strategy or go out of
business.

The Intel x86, on the other hand, continues to outpace everything else on
practical performance. ARM is coming on strong in tablets and smartphones, but
overall, the x86 platform has lasted a long time.

Not long after he wrote this, IBM's System/360 architecture went through an
amazing transformation that's kept it competitive.

From the beginning, the System/360 was based on bipolar logic that consumes
much more power than the CMOS logic microprocessors are based on. In the early
90's, IBM realized that further development of bipolar logic was impossible
because of power and heat dissipation issues.

IBM had to go to CMOS, but CMOS logic wasn't as fast as bipolar logic at the
time, leaving IBM unable to produce mainframes as powerful as the last
generation -- unable to handle the requirements of existing customers.

IBM's answer was "Parallel Sysplex", a clustering solution that presents a
single-system image of a group of mainframes. With Parallel Sysplex, IBM
produced microprocessor-based mainframe clusters that scaled beyond the last
generation of bipolar mainframes.

Some architectures end up being dead ends, but if something is commercially
successful, it's amazing how long it can sometimes be strung along.

~~~
glhaynes
Just curious: if the 68k series had had the same amount of resources put
behind it as x86, there's no reason to think it wouldn't be similarly
competitive today, is there? (Obviously this was historically impossible
because nobody had the incentive that Intel/AMD have had, so I'm just asking
from a technical standpoint.)

~~~
ido
Modern x86 CPUs aren't that much closer to being x86 than to being 68k since
the Pentium Pro: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_Pro#Summary>

They expose the x86 instruction set externally for compatibility, but
translate it to a different instruction set internally. It is conceivable that
you could have instead translate 68k instructions and the rest of the CPU
would have remained the same.

------
JacksonGariety
I now predict that in 15 years, the tablet will be on the decline. I called
it, everyone remember.

~~~
mooism2
Bullshit.

You have to say _why_ it will decline. You have to say whether it will be
replaced, and if so by what. You have to present your reasoning and justify
it.

Microsoft's then CTO presented his reasoning and justified it. So should you.

(And if you're going to whine that you were just making a joke? No. You were
spewing a cheap little piece of cynicism.)

~~~
barrkel
The memo is extremely vague about what it is predicting. It's basically
agreeing with Sun ("the network is the computer" (c) 1984) / Larry Ellison
("Network Computer") / etc. - that something networked will outflank PCs.

But that's a prediction heavily dependent on timing (both those concepts
failed to take off) and IMO misses what actually got the next generation of
computing to take off (wireless networking, high-res screens and capacitive
touch) and it also misses what is the main thrust of the next generation,
mobility rather than connectedness.

------
snowwrestler
Prescient visions of today's computing go back much farther than that, to the
research of Alan Kay and others at PARC. I don't have the materials in front
of me but my summary from memory is that they proposed the existence of small
computers you would have with you at all times, which could access wireless
networks. The small computers would use that access to retrieve information
for their user, and to report location to an environment that would respond.
It's not too far from what we have with smart phones now. And Alan Kay in
particular conceived of a tablet computer very similar to the tablets we have
today. I believe all this work was done in the 1970s and 1980s.

~~~
mpweiher
Yes, the dynabook concept was created by Kay in 1968. He claimed that the idea
hit him when he was in a lecture by Gordon Moore explainig his law...you know
the one...

Anyway, knowing something about exponentials he did some quick calculations
and voilà, iPad, er, Dynabook.

Also, the Alto "PCs" that Xerox built during the 70ies, the ones with the
bitmap display, mouse and Ethernet networking, were known as "Interim
Dynabooks", so very consciously and deliberately approximations of the tablet
computers to come.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook>

------
cdooh
Top brass at Microsoft have known for a long time that the PC will be replace
by something more portable; Bill Gates has tried, and failed, to launch a
tablet for a while now. What they got wrong was execution and execution is
everything....

------
nivertech
In 1998 non-PC or post-PC devices was "a next big thing". I worked on a
startup building corporate portal server software for non-PC devices like
voice and WAP-enabled "smart"-phones.

Wrong timing.

Apple didn't hit it first time with Newton, but second time with iPhone and
iPad was a big hit.

~~~
rbanffy
We started to see it more clearly with the first smartphones - much like the
modem quickly became the most useful peripheral for my Apple II, even the
slowest connection to a data network made PDAs much more useful and allowed
them to become stand-alone, even if minimalistic, devices rather than what
Microsoft then called "PC companions".

------
Jabbles
But predicting something without giving a timeframe is completely useless.
Imagine if this had influenced Microsoft's strategy from 1993. They'd have
missed out on the enormous influence of the PC, whose recent competitors such
as tablets and smartphones have only really surfaced in the last 5 years.

~~~
lambda
Actually, Microsoft did move to the tablet before anyone else. They created a
tablet version of Windows 10 years ago. Do you remember those? I had some
friends who had those machines; mostly in the form of laptops that had a
screen that would rotate into a tablet form factor, with a stylus for input.

Those were a market failure. It wasn't until Apple re-invented the tablet, and
Android showed that there is actually a tablet market and not just an iPad
market, that Microsoft re-entered the game with the Surface.

~~~
archangel_one
Yeah, I remember those machines and did even see one used in person once.

Aside from any Apple magic and all the associated style factors, I think
technology was just not ready then; they were just a laptop with a reversible
screen, which was too heavy and bulky to be used in the ways people actually
want to use a tablet rather than a laptop. You _might_ have gotten two hours
of battery life, for the first week of its life. And the stylus wasn't exactly
inspiring either - it smacked more of a way to easily translate mouse-driven
software than the best way to interact with the device. That's a lot more
obvious in hindsight, of course.

------
neya
Tablets and PC will co-exist. You see, no one gets the fact that tablets are
limited by their size. If you want to stuff in power, you are going to
compromise on something, especially size, in this context.

Tablets are over-hyped and all they have is the cool factor. They are GREAT
for consuming content, but not for producing them. And people who produce
content are a huge majority. Let's take web developers and designers for
example, I can't even imagine them (or me) working on their designs with 'an
app' with a tablet. At least not until if it has a mouse; and if it has a
mouse, it is automatically an evolution of the PC. There are so many many
segments which the tablet can never fulfil. As a 3d artist, I can tell you how
important the Graphics processor is to me, when I'm rendering my artwork. And
rendering is not something instantaneous, depending on the complexity of the
scene, it could take anywhere between a few seconds to a dozen hours to a
couple of days for a single frame. And a remember, one second of a video (for
film) has 24 frames. So I need to wait for 24frames*12hrs (assume 1 frame = 12
hrs avg.) to get one second of video rendered. And this is just one example
I'm able to think of, but there are many many industries like Animation or 3d
that are heavily dependent on PC's and tablets can NEVER replace them.
Performance-centric industries are a huge portion of the PC market, until they
make the transition to tablets (which is not in the near future), this tablet
replacing PC's is just over-hyped BS that's a waste of everyone's time.

~~~
ricardobeat
Despite all you said, the Cintiq, a very precise tablet, not a computer and
mouse, is the dream of every graphic artist.

The "great for consumption, bad for creation" line has become a bozo-bit
flipper for me.

~~~
chongli
First of all, you can't use a Cintiq without a computer.

Secondly, when people say "great for consumption, bad for creation" they are
referring to the design of tablet operating systems like iOS. Artists who use
a Cintiq typically have multiple monitors and are multitasking with many
different applications (Photoshop, Illustrator, ZBrush etc). This sort of
workflow is just not possible on an iOS, WinRT or Android device.

------
jnazario
the author writes: _In his second last paragraph, Myhrvold predicts the
winners will be those who "own the software standards on IHCs"_ ...

this is exactly why it has been so important that internet standards remain
neutral, open, and free. without that, we'd truly be at the mercy of a single
vendor (DEC, MSFT, etc) and you know what that stagnation looks like.

app stores are a risk of that alternative future (that honestly the phone
companies also mapped out and drooled over, and slowly doled out with insane
per-line item charges).

------
bztzt
To me what Myhrvold is vaguely describing as the "IHC" in this memo seems more
like a set-top box or game console than a phone or tablet. I think this may
have influenced Microsoft's decision to pour resources into the Xbox starting
in 2001. They got it right that there would be an "IHC" but misjudged what
sort of thing it would be.

------
wildgift
I think the PCs are in decline among lower-income individuals and working
class people who don't need to read a lot or write a lot. They were never that
popular a purchase in the first place, but because they never got deep into
the games and computer culture, phone and tablet products are adequate for
their needs, and have some advantages.

The main advantage is always-on mobile networking, so that sms, twitter,
email, facebook, etc. are always available everywhere. It's also a phone and a
camera.

The clearest evidence I have of this shift is observing coworkers who don't
have internet at home, or lack a PC at home. They tend to run a lot more apps
on their iphones and android phones. I'd say, typically, a dozen or more. The
phone _is_ their computer. They also are considering tablets.

Personally, I make data: text, code, graphics, and now videos etc. My PC is my
primary platform. My satellite system is my netbook. My smartphone is a
distant third. I have maybe eight apps on my two smartphones: This American
Life, Facebook, Twitter, GasBuddy, LATimes (just a bookmark really), Google
Maps (again, a bookmark), RedLaser, Cut the Rope, and some visual mandala
thing.

I don't feel like I need a tablet. I'm probably going to get one, because I've
been writing toy apps on android... but that's partly for my resume.

Tablets are just like video game consoles. They're going to be more popular
than general purpose PCs and will be a huge market, for better or worse. The
PC made a lot of people smarter. It taught people to control their computers,
and even to program them. It created a culture of creativity. It was kind of
like buying a car, and then finding there's a set of tools and a small machine
shop in the trunk. We lose all of that with tablets.

A tablet is like a car with the hood bolted shut, and a gas cap that only lets
you fill up at specific gas stations. It's fine for mechanics and the gas
stations, but crap for drivers.

Mhyrvold's prediction wasn't quite right though.

Early demand was not for videophone. It was for sms and twitter and email.
Low-bandwidth, immediate services. The killer video app is still video on
demand. High costs for data impede some applications.

Price was not cheaper by an order of magnitude. It was around half, or a bit
more than half.

Gaming has been consuming CPU so quickly that it became its own category of
computer.

Gaming, videophone and phone have only started to work on the internet in the
past five years or so. Network latency has been a problem.

------
unimpressive
Predicting the future is much like a sweepstakes.

Many will enter, few will win.

------
shmerl
Is there any decline of PC? I didn't notice.

~~~
ricardobeat
Tablet sales are surpassing sales from all the largest PC manufacturers -
combined.

~~~
shmerl
How does it show any decline? PC market is stable and only grows. Especially
in the corporate sphere. All this talk about tablets killing PC - is pure
idiocy. Tablets are toys in comparison to PCs. Only when mobile computers will
develop to be real PC alternatives (i.e. offering equivalently ergonomic user
interfaces - hollographic and what not), one can start talking about them
replacing PCs. While they use touchscreen input, they'll remain alongside PCs.

~~~
rbanffy
When people use less and less their PCs they are less inclined to buy newer
ones in the future. When it's time to replace my mom's PC, I doubt she'll need
more than a small HDMI plug sized Android device connected to a large screen.

~~~
shmerl
Some people, who don't use computers extensively. But most - are using both,
PCs and mobile computers. Current interface of mobile devices isn't comparable
and can't possibly replace PC ergonomics (keyboard, monitor and etc.).

Real alternative would be some holographic interface that pops out in the air
from a computer a size of a grain. That's an alternative to PC ergonomically.
Not the current day tablets or handsets.

~~~
ricardobeat
For many activities you don't need to replace PC ergonomics. Take store clerks
for example: the work they do (looking up products, inventory, processing
payments) can be done just as well or better using a touchscreen device with a
specialized interface.

~~~
shmerl
For some you don't need them, but for some they are a hard requirement. It
means they aren't going to be replaced by tablets. Tablets can take some
percentage of activities that used to be done on regular computers - that's
true. But not all by any means. Therefore talks about "killing" - are not to
the point. When some revolution in the interfaces will happen, and new methods
will replace keyboards mouses and wide screens - then one can say the classic
PC is obsolete. But that time is not here yet.

~~~
ricardobeat
> new methods will replace keyboards mouses and wide screens

Like multi-touch or gestures? That's exactly what's refreshing and great about
tablets.

~~~
shmerl
No, this can't replace keyboards and wide screens because of incomparable
productivity. More like holographic screens and input devices which can take a
size of a big monitor (or bigger) and offer convenient interaction methods,
while not taking really any space.

What I meant, is something along these lines:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKyQhriOrD0>

------
pyrotechnick
The decline of the blogosphere was predicted in 2012 by the inhabitants of
Earth.

------
laurentoget
The end of the world was also predicted numerous times in the past.

