
Mobile Changes Everything - ryanb
http://a16z.com/2015/06/19/mobile-it-changes-everything/
======
haxel
"Everyone gets a pocket supercomputer" \- Slide 8

I see this idea repeated so often, but it's unfortunate that we don't also
have the _value_ of a supercomputer in our pocket. The sole purpose of a
supercomputer is to advance the interests of its owner, who has exclusive
control over it. Whether the purpose is prediction, or simulation, or to
advance the state of the art, the benefit goes to the owner.

Yet we seem to have less and less control over our smart-phones. With so much
information about each of us being siphoned off through the Internet, it's
easy to wonder whose interest they serve.

With all of the advances in computing power, you'd think we'd put a bit more
imagination into capturing more value for each individual smart-phone user,
and less into centralized capture and analysis of our digital activity.

~~~
kaolinite
My parents both fairly recently bought iPads. Previously they used a Windows
laptop and an Ubuntu desktop - both far more powerful and giving far more
control. Or at least that's one way of looking at it.

Their iPads may have limits on their functionality, but as a result of their
simplicity, they enable my parents to control a lot more of their computing
experience.

They rent movies, read books, use RSS (!) via Flipboard, edit photos, install
apps (previously they would never install software) and - most importantly -
they experiment with new things. Unlike the old PCs, which they'd become more
fearful of with every inevitable fault or virus, with their iPads they can
just hit the home button.

For you and I, you're right - mobile can be limiting. But don't underestimate
the power of mobile for those previously intimidated by computers.

~~~
erikb
Doing more and having more control are not interchangeable. Your parents
reading more books on their computer means they do more. More control means
they know what happens inside the software/machine and they can change
something about that.

You are right that people don't care about control as much as an idea of it.
And you are also right that giving control to someone else who can get a value
out of you might result in you being able to do more, but at some point having
no control over ones life will bite people in the ass. And that's what the
control topic is about.

In a simple example Apple can decide to not show the books to your parents any
more. There is nothing they can do about it. Getting your Linux computer to
work right takes time but then it's much less likely that a software can
delete your data or if they delete it you are more likely to have a backup
because you put sweat into configuring your system that way.

~~~
robbiemitchell
> Getting your Linux computer to work right takes time but

It doesn't just take more time; once something is sufficiently difficult, it
goes from incrementally time-consuming to insurmountable (for most people) --
it might as well not exist.

~~~
erikb
Did we just move from "What is control? How do I get control?" to "Linux is
probably insurmountable so we don't even have to try"?

~~~
corysama
If my parents ask "How do I get control?" And someone answers "Getting Linux
to work takes some time, but..." Their response should be that they won't even
try. My parents have a hard time with the concept that there are things called
"files". Directories are completely beyond them.

~~~
erikb
I never intended to convince you or your parents to use Linux. It's just, that
you said that they are able to do more, therefore they have more control. If
you understand that the opposite might be the case then my job is done. In
some scenarios it's okay to have less control in exchange to do more. I do
such exchanges on a regular basis myself. But one must be aware that one gives
away control, not gains control.

------
austenallred
Holy hell, hackers. This isn't about you.

Nearly all of the comments in this thread are extremely negative - ranging
from hand-wavy about how valuable mobile is to expressing excitement that
"[dumb] people will [again] be leaving the Internet." What an incredibly
pessimistic and self-centric way of viewing the world.

The incredible thing about a supercomputer that fits in your hand isn't that
we're putting them in the hand of hackers who went to MIT 40 years ago. It's
not exciting for someone who was going to be sitting behind a Linux terminal
anyway. This pretty much changes nothing for them.

But it changes _everything_ for the kid in sub-Saharan Africa who has never
had access to a computer. It changes _everything_ for my friend's family in
Iran - none of them ever had a computer, and now _all_ of them have a
smartphone.

It even changes everything for my father-in-law - a hay farmer who had little
interest in using a computer, but inexplicably loves his iPad. He takes it out
to the farm and performs what I would consider the most trivial of computing
tasks, but it's something he never did before, even when PCs were cheap and
ubiquitous and I spent hour after hour teaching him how to scroll and double-
click.

Of course, hackers are right: That smartphone is not be as good at editing
photos as your 15-inch Macbook Pro. And it's a horror to write code from. But,
to borrow an analogy from Peter Thiel, the difference between editing photos
on your phone and editing them on a computer may be a move from 1 to n for
hackers. Hackers, who have been at n for years, are rational in not caring.
For this Iranian family, and for my father-in-law, however, this is a move
from 0 to 1. And that's a big deal.

Are the operating systems more closed than hackers would like them to be? Yes.
But my friend's family in Iran has neither the interest nor the ability to
hack on the kernel of some mobile operating system, so they don't really care.
Is it harder for them to type on a phone than it is on a keyboard? Of course,
but now they're typing _something_. It works, and they're using it, and that's
a _big, big deal_.

This isn't necessarily a revolution of what it's possible to do with
computers, but a revolution of _who_ can do things with computers. We'll soon
be reaching economies of scale we could never imagine. Access, where there
previously was none.

That you can call an Uber because it's in your pocket and happens to include
GPS, in my mind, is just a side-benefit.

~~~
duaneb
So it's not a revolution in computing, it's a revolution in the ability to
sell those devices to other people. Big whoop. Let me know when they can root
the devices they buy so they aren't crippled anymore.

~~~
austenallred
If everybody on the planet having a computer isn't "a revolution in computing"
I don't know what is.

You don't have to know how to root a device to gain value from it.

~~~
duaneb
If everyone on the planet having a computer isn't "a revolution in marketing"
I don't know what is.

Maybe we should stop and consider whether we are actually improving peoples'
lives with these objects....

~~~
austenallred
So if someone doesn't know how to root their computer it won't improve their
lives? That's absolutely absurd.

People can fucking use Google now. Yes, that improves their lives.

~~~
duaneb
> People can fucking use Google now. Yes, that improves their lives.

Socrates would disagree. I'm pretty sure I do too.

------
jimduk
One comment from experience Slide 21 "The mobile supply chain dominates all
tech" / Flood of smartphone components - Lego for technology

    
    
        The shiny Lego is only available for the major players. 
    

For the current key components - GPU/CPU/Camera sensor - you can't order
them/get support/get docs unless you have scale or amazing connections. If you
are a hardware startup your lego is 2/3 yrs behind the big players, and behind
public perception.

This makes complete sense once you look at chip fab costs/profit models and
the industry structure, but is not great for disruption from smaller players.

NB this was from a European perspective of doing things officially - it's
possible there might be more 'unofficial' components and support if this is
done in China with strong local support

~~~
revelation
This has been a long tradition in the hardware industry, it's nothing to do
with mobile.

I guess the problem with mobile is more that you need much more expertise to
properly design hardware on a mobile scale, and the scale makes every step so
much harder. It's a huge barrier to entry.

------
whysonot
In case anybody is interested in the google books chart of the word "mobile":

[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=mobile&year_st...](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=mobile&year_start=1800&year_end=2010&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cmobile%3B%2Cc0)

After the context is set, the most important page appears to be 44. It
suggests that the next blessing[1] of unicorns will tackle enormous markets by
building products around mobile. Didn't this shift already happen? I couldn't
think of many major industries that don't already have mobile-first
contenders.

Maybe I'm missing the point of the "tech is outgrowing tech' sentiment?

[1]
[http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_group_of_unicorns_called](http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_group_of_unicorns_called)

------
choppaface
The presentation touches on smartphone penetration and communication behaviors
of teens but really doesn't grapple with that phenomenon with any novel amount
of rigor. The talk is aimed at making us believe in (i.e. want to invest in)
tech. The argument is that the opportunity is so big, even fools who just
throw money in the pot stand to make money.

The trouble is that we're mostly aware of how awesome mobile penetration is
and how vital social networks are. I'd much rather see the preso that brings
new evidence and rigor to the table than the last ditched effort to pick up
conservatives who have been ignoring tech for the past 7 years.

If a16z wants to chart progress, would love to see some of these graphs posted
online and live-updated daily/monthly.

~~~
donkeyd
There was a time, when the big investors were saying things like "even fools
who just throw money in the pot stand to make money". I think it was around
the year 2000. It worked out well for a few of those big investors, not so
much for the fools.

------
Animats
Mobile puts users back in their proper role as consumers, where they belong.
The personal computer, and the Internet, were originally seen as subversive
tools of empowerment. Remember those "manifestos of cyberspace" from the
1990s? Remember cyberpunk? Well, that didn't happen. Most Internet traffic
today goes to the top 10 sites. None of those sites are even run by companies
with a broad shareholder base. The billionaires are firmly in charge.

 _" If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human
face - forever."_ \- Orwell.

~~~
hpaavola
There is always a small market for a slow lumberjack, but there is zero reason
to use anything else than the best software.

Best lumberjacks might live in different corner of the world and they are most
likely busy. So you hire the slow one. But with software things are different.

When software is eating the world, it means creating monopolies in all
markets. All text messaging is being eaten by one company, there is only one
social network, there is only Twitter, soon there is only one taxi company and
there have pretty much always been only one professional photo editing
software. And the list just goes on forever.

How on earth do we collect taxes and finance social services and all that
stuff when there is only handful of companies turning a profit and they need
fewer and fewer hands building the service and they are not tied to a
geographical location?

~~~
e12e
Strange definition of "best software", if you're implying that a) "best
software" wins, b) the top 10 sites are examples of "best software".

Google is still best at search for most sane metrics. But to claim that
they're "best" at email, blogging, image services? Or even good? For the end
users? Popular does not imply best (or even good). It implies marketing and
mind-share.

~~~
hpaavola
I don't claim to be smarter than the whole market. So yes, GMail is the best
email application (assuming it has the biggest market share, not sure about
that) because that's what the market tells us. It might not be good, but it is
the best.

But better term would have been "best software service" or something like
that. Since at least early version of Facebook were bad software, but it was
already the best social media service since all your friends were using it.
Also, Netflix might be really crappy software (I doubt it, but it could) but
because it has the best movie library combined with the best prices, everybody
uses it.

~~~
e12e
By this line of reasoning I think you might find that coca-cola is better than
water. I still think it's a strange definition of "better".

~~~
UK-AL
It#s better in that it meets needs other products don't. That's why people buy
it.

~~~
e12e
There are areas in the world where coca cola is cheaper and more readily
available than clean water. Are you trying to say that the only reason for
that is that most people prefer it that way?

------
CodingGuy
I love mobile first - all idiots are leaving the web again! :)

------
z3t4
Mobiles and personal computers are different, but the difference will
eventually blur.

What worries me though, is that currently mobiles are not as great as PC's
when it comes to learning and creating. And that will slow technology growth,
as todays youth are consumers rather then hackers/creators.

To make mobile software you still need a PC :P

------
gavanwoolery
Just because mobile is more prevalent does not make it more valuable, in fact,
quite the opposite: the fact that it reaches more classes dilutes the spending
power of the average user. What we have ended up with is a segment with
extreme competition AND low app prices (the average PC app sells for at least
10x more than a mobile app).

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Although we have tried to app-ify
everything, I still prefer doing 99 percent of tasks on a device with a real
keyboard and enough horsepower to prevent lag (in spite of rapid improvements,
I still find the lag on my mobile device (1 year old now - HTC One M8) to be
frustrating).

------
baristaGeek
Pretty informative presentation, but the last slides are misleading.

It makes sense that the frequency of the word representing a certain
technology in different books throughout time is modeled by a normal
distribution. However, because the reason why they were included in a text
creates such a huge bias/mental trap, such frequency shouldn't be a relevant
indicator to measure the "sex appeal" of an industry.

------
quantisan
The $30 fully featured smartphone is already here. I've been using a Microsoft
Lumia 635 ($30 with no contract, $50 unlocked in US) as my main driver for a
month. Sure it doesn't take epic photos or play the latest mobile games. But
everything you'd expect works surprisingly well. Compare it to a couple of
years ago, even a $100 Android phone felt castrated back then.

------
cstuder
Additional food for thought: The newest statistics about landline and mobile
adoption from the CDC: [http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/23/8826159/wireless-
only-hous...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/23/8826159/wireless-only-
households-study-cdc-nhis)

------
oldpond
I would love to see a green screen interface on a phone, touchable, of course.
_sings_ I got a mainframe in my pocket...

------
danblick
Great presentation. This focuses on new business opportunities enabled by
technology... but what kinds of political changes would you expect as half the
world's population gets access to cheaper information and communication? Which
institutions would you expect to gain or lose?

------
Zigurd
There is a lot of meditation on the meaning of "Everyone gets a pocket
supercomputer" here.

Thing is, mobile devices are not pocket _personal_ computers. You might wish
they were, and maybe someday the few million of you, out of the 1.5-2 billion
annual mobile device customers, worldwide who wish it will have mobile devices
you really can take complete control of.

Heck, out of the 300 million annual PC customers, how many of them buy PCs
thinking "This is my _personal_ computer?"

And if we really want secure, controllable, _personal_ computers, we'll need
to re-invent them because PCs long ago sold out to IT and monitoring and
compliance and all that.

------
oneiric
"Computerization"

Did anyone here ever use that term? Is it appropriately grouped with railways,
steel and software?

------
mdpopescu
Seriously? "Microsoft is dead" again? Hasn't he learned from the last time he
said that? :)

------
zargath
I think it is very "dangerous" to say mobile = smartphone = iOS + Android, at
least that is what I hear people say.

What about all the billion devices we get in clothe, toys, tracking, etc?

You can make insanely fast and small hardware today, and it will be used for
awesome stuff. That is not just because you have a smart-phone in your nasty
little pocketses. .-)

------
hathym
supercomputers to facebook and play candy crush, what a wonderful change

------
mathattack
I'm a huge Benedict Evans fan, but is this news anymore?

------
pjmlp
Changes everything and yet they have a website that displays like crap on my
mobile, forcing me to zoom in page sections.

~~~
yen223
10 years ago this wouldn't have been an issue. Things really have changed!

~~~
zerr
10 years ago you didn't have such issues with WAP sites.

~~~
e12e
Then again WAP was crap NTT had the right idea 15 years ago -- just use a
(more) sane subset of standard html for the "mobile" web.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-mode](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-mode)

------
paulgayham
mobile is irrelevant and 'app's are mostly crap. My phone has flappy bird and
that's it.

------
graycat
=== Overview

"Mobile" \-- an astoundingly popular collection of new products? Yes.

"Changes everything"? No.

Mobile is new and popular? Yes, and at one time in the US so were tacos.

New and popular are not nearly the same as _changing everything_.

=== Use a Smartphone?

Could I use a smartphone to buy from Amazon? Yes. Would I? Very definitely,
no!

Why not?

(1) If the user interface (UI) is a mobile _app_ instead of a Web page, no
thanks.

Why? Because with a Web page and my Web browser and PC, I get to keep a copy
of the relevant Web pages I used in the shopping and buying. And I very much
want to keep that data for the future.

(2) Want to keep those copies of Web pages on a mobile device? Not a chance.

Why? Because for such data, I want my PC with its hardware and software. I
want the Windows file system (NTFS), my text editor and its many macros, and
my means of finding things in the file system.

My PC also gives me a large screen, a good keyboard, a good printer, a mouse
(I don't want to keep touching the screen -- in fact, my PC screen is not
quite close enough for me to touch), ability to read/write CDs and DVDs,
backup to a USB device, etc.

Do I want to backup to the cloud? Not a chance. I backup to local devices.

Why? Because for cloud backup, money, a cloud bureaucracy, the Internet,
spooks, and lawyers could get involved.

=== Business

My business is a Web site. I'm developing that on my PC, and will go live on a
PC -- in both cases, a PC, not a mobile device.

Mobile users of my Web site? Sure: My Web pages should look and work fine on
any mobile device with a Web browser up to date as of, say, 10 years ago.

=== New Business for A16Z

It sounds like A16Z likes mobile because for 2+ billion poor people
smartphones are their first computer and are new and popular.

Okay, then, A16Z, here's another business you should like -- bar soap. Also,
of course, just from the OP, tooth brushes. No way should we forget -- salt.
Okay, of course -- sugar. Sure, one more -- toilet paper. Naw, got to have one
more, plastic knives, forks, spoons, and drinking cups.

Not to forget -- sell them batteries for their smartphones. Maybe even solar
panel recharging for their smartphones!

Especially for A16Z, got to have one more \-- sure, Kool Aid.

=== Summary

A computer is the most important tool in my life. Currently my PC is my
computer.

A smartphone most definitely does not replace my computer.

Actually, at present I have no use for a smartphone, a cell phone, or a mobile
device and, so, have none.

Actually some years ago a friend gave me a cell phone. Once I turned it on,
and some complicated dialog came up about my reading some contract and sending
money. I turned the thing off and haven't turned it back on since.

Or, my PC has a _network effect_ : It has all my data and means of entering,
storing, processing, communicating, and viewing data, all in one place. A
mobile device cannot be that one place, and, due to the network effect, I
don't want to split off some of my data into a mobile _silo_.

=== Denouement

This post was written, spell checked, etc. with my favorite text editor, using
my favorite spell checker, on my PC, and no way would I have wanted to have
done this post on a smartphone.

~~~
roel_v
The world doesn't revolve around you. What's the point of your post?

~~~
graycat
The claim of the OP is that "mobile changes everything". The OP frequently
compares with PCs.

My point is that mobile does not change everything, and in particular does not
replace PCs.

I illustrated with examples I know, my own usage. E.g., I am a very heavy user
of computing -- no one with only 24 hours a day can expect to be a heavier
user. Still, personally I have no use for mobile devices at all. None. Zip,
zilch, zero. For me personally, mobile changes nothing. Can't use it. Don't
want it. No sale.

"Mobile changes everything"? Not for me!

Mobile doesn't replace food, clothing, shelter, cars, medical care -- or PCs.

More generally, for a user interface, there are a lot of advantages to just
highly universal, device independent HTTP, HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. As a
user interface, apps are a really big step down -- not universal, device
dependent, can't save, access, reuse the data, get more security problems,
etc.

Of course it's not about me -- I just used my examples and thinking.

You are welcome to give up your PC if you want -- I'm keeping my PC, and at
least for now don't want a smartphone.

I intend to buy at least two new PCs -- I don't want a smartphone around even
for free.

In particular, while A16Z is all excited about mobile changes everything, for
my own usage I care less than 0.00 about anything mobile. For my business, my
_mobile strategy_ is just to have really simple Web pages.

The A16Z data presentation is from okay up to quite nice, but their
conclusions from their data are junk.

A16Z is just looking for attention, and are passing out nonsense.

Maybe with such attention they hope to get _deal flow_. So, maybe the hint is:
"Entrepreneurs, send us your mobile business plans -- we're eager to write
early stage equity funding checks for such." Likely nonsense: No doubt among
what else hasn't changed are VCs' criteria for writing early stage checks --
traction significant and growing rapidly for a market and a product for that
market that might quickly be worth $1 billion and where the entrepreneurs are
desperate for cash and to sign a bad business deal.

Further, really want people thinking such nonsense on your BoD?

I want to debunk their nonsense.

Just why they pass out such nonsense I don't know, but a guess is that they
believe that it will help them with their LPs. We're talking some really
gullible LPs.

~~~
prawn
But you're one example in a sea of mobile users. The presentation was using
real data and citing sources.

~~~
graycat
But the data and sources, as good as they were, and interesting, even
astounding, didn't rationally support their claim that "Mobile changes
everything".

Moreover, their frequent comparisons with PCs flop: So far mobile just will
not do much to replace PCs. The world has a lot of tacos, too, and they won't
replace PCs either.

Broadly mobile is mostly just a new product (collection of new products, new
product category), does replace PCs for some relatively light work formerly
done on PCs, has some new functionality and uses from being mobile, having GPS
and a camera, etc., but, still, just does not yet replace PCs, and the data
and sources do not so establish.

For any good theory, need some examples, and I offered mine.

Basically, for any really _heavy_ PC user, mobile is not a replacement.

~~~
prawn
But mobile is changing everything. I don't have a fixed phone in my house, I
use my mobile phone. I don't use one of the two expensive DSLRs in my house, I
use my phone. In two months recently in the US, I never hailed a cab, but used
an app to hail and track a car. I read books on my phone, I edit photos on my
phone, I track site analytics and app sales on my phone, I play games on my
phone, I navigate using maps on my phone, I record notes on my phone.

I switched from a desktop to a laptop three machines and 10+ years ago. Never
considered buying a desktop since. Modern mobile devices (Surface-style
tablet/laptop hybrids) are very capable these days and not far away from the
MBP I use. Once phone-form-factor devices are more powerful and we have
virtual displays and a keyboard replacement, the needle will shift further.
That level of capability will cover almost everyone who uses a computer for
work.

Don't get me wrong, I don't work on my phone. I feel cramped with less than
three monitors. I like to spread out. But I also like to scrawl notes pencil
on paper, and that doesn't mean that computers haven't taken over the offices
of decades past.

And there's no denying that the mobile form factor - a computer that you carry
around with you easily - is dominating and will go further. Someone who
doesn't have a use one will be a blip.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Maybe all those are possible mobile; but just not very good. Edit a photo? For
real? With one finger? Books one paragraph at a time? That's gotta be slow.
Games - not immersive 3d ones, maybe dumb puzzle games or side-scrollers with
a tiny part of the screen visible at one time. And navigation is very hard on
a phone - turn-by-turn is the norm, which totally blows any global awareness
and turns you into a cog. I can't see enough map on a phone to even begin to
plan a route.

I'm heavily biased - I can't exist without 2 large screens, mouse and keyboard
for what I use a computer for. But from my point of view every attempt to use
a mobile device ends in frustration and despair - they are so slow, such a
tiny bandwidth for interaction, information comes in droplets. I'm unwilling
to dumb myself down to their level.

~~~
nekopa
> Edit a photo? For real? With one finger? Do you use 2 mice to edit your
> photos? Most computer graphics people I know edit photos with a pen (also a
> singular digit). The main thing I miss when editing photos on my laptop is
> the ability to reach out and touch it, and normally with 1, 2 or more
> fingers.

The main problem is the damn iPad and its 'fat finger' syndrome, but I have a
pen based 8 inch tablet that I wish had more capable photo editing software,
because it turns editing photos into a dream (I am not a professional, and
could never get the hang of digitizing pads, I like to see what I am editing
directly under the pen)

------
lucian
slide 31 / video min 16:07

\------------------------------

Global SMS: 20 bn messages a day

WhatsApp: 30 bn messages a day.

(with just 40 engineers)

\------------------------------

should be refactored:

\------------------------------

Global SMS: 20 bn messages a day

(10.000 Engineers using C/C++/Java - just guessing)

WhatsApp: 30 bn messages a day

(with just 40 engineers using Erlang)

\------------------------------

~~~
blackRust
Two things that are very wrong with this:

1\. WhatsApp is dependant on cellular infrastructure which you count into your
10k engineers.

2\. "Erlang was designed with the aim of improving the development of
telephony applications."[1] So it powers/powered a large part of the cellular
infrastructure.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlang_(programming_language)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlang_\(programming_language\))

~~~
sriram_sun
Isn't SMS using the cellular infrastructure as well?

