5 ms·

> Computational power ... could be harnessed by anyone with a few thousand dollars and the willingness to learn. That was the "vibe" of early mass computing. A

> Computational power ... could be harnessed by anyone with a few thousand dollars and the willingness to learn. That was the "vibe" of early mass computing. Anyone could be involved and anyone could make things better. It was fundamentally optimistic - felt a bit like Startrek NG :) Have a look at "Computer Lib / Dream Machines" by Nelson. > the fundamental shift that transformed personal computing ... away from empowerment is the realization from industry giants that the platforms that they built ... they could exploit. There has always a portion of the field that was looking to profit, but it wasn't the completely overwhelming portion that it has become, and the feel was for reasonable profit, not VC yields and "the company is the product" that came to characterise the field :( Was it VC that killed computing?

pipo234 3y ago
> Was it VC that killed computing? That certainly played a role. But as your first citation already suggests, another major factor is that personal computers have steadily evolved into incredibly complicated systems, the details of which are way beyond what can be harnessed by anyone with the means and willingness to learn...
- LeanderK 3y ago
  there's also a tension between making things simple and making things customisable. The reality is that for most a computer is not a hobby but a tool. They use it to do something and do not want to babysit it. The simpler, the better. Ideally no interaction required beside the interaction you want. It's similar to cars. Nobody can fix todays cars besides professionals and I bet most have really no idea what's going. But most also don't care because they do not view cars as a hobby but as a tool that just has to work (it usually just works). If they are not required to fix them themselves they won't engage with it at all.
  - trasz4 3y ago
    Except todays applications are way less reliable than what we used two decades ago. It's not that we don't _nee to fix them anymore, quite the opposite. Instead we just learned to ignore those screwups, manually refreshing a page when it fails.
teekert 3y ago
Uhm, isn't the world running on Linux, a super open platform with tons of documentation? I feel no real need to join the platforms tbh. Yeah, the platforms are easier, but that's to be expected, addictive fast-food is also easier. "Slow computing" takes some effort, and is not for everyone. But it's there for anyone seeking it out. I'm on Matrix, run NextCloud, use Podverse for podcasts. Anyone can do that (well maybe NextCloud is bit on the technical side).
- jdkdldod 3y ago
  Matrix is a fake open project controlled by one megalomaniac that successfully brain drained XMPP while everyone in the chat world uses Discord and Teams There was a brief moment ten years ago when XMPP ruled the world. Matrix sucks.
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  Decentralizated computing is inherently "slower" than centralized computing, for example. You're buying flexibility and freedom in exchange for complexity and service degradation. If you think that stuff is worth it, you have to conclude it's like vegetables: they're healthier, but no one will want to eat them, even the people who realize they're heathier. :p
  - teekert 3y ago
    If you take time to prepare them right, veggies are great. Even more so when you culture them yourself (even slower!). I come from a culture of: Boil you veggies to death, squash with potatoes, eat (most taste comes from the meat presented on the side). This can be delicious if the veggie is kale, the potatoes are squashed with butter, you add bacon baked in wine vinegar and honey, and eat it with some mustard. But generally the taste is boiled away. But, if you take your chicory for example, fry it, then add some orange juice, steam it a bit, make it into a "tarte tartin" with goat cheese, rocket and sun dried tomatoes on top... That's a new world.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  > isn't the world running on Linux? Well, all the powerful entities in IT are. Most people are on Android, that is technically Linux but not open by any standard. Most others are on iOS, that is even less open, besides technically being BSD. Most of the ones trying to get an open platform to do something useful are stuck on Windows, and completely under the whims of a few powerful players.
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
The Byte era was very much "extremely wealthy values of anyone." The original 16K Apple II cost the equivalent of more than $5k. If you wanted 48k - and you did for any kind of non-trivial programming - the equivalent price would be $11k. Computing isn't dead, it's just entirely commoditised. Most people who drive cars don't care about what's under the hood. They don't care they could build themselves a custom engine which is four times as powerful. They just want a transport appliance that works reliably and doesn't cost too much to run. Modern phone-based computing is actually an insane success. Go to a restaurant and you'll get a QR code link to today's menu, which can be changed daily or even hourly. Sometimes you can even order from the table. Go to a show, book a flight, or maybe just use some public transport, and there's a good chance you'll be able to use a digital ticket. Or at least use your phone for payment. You can book medical appointments, fill prescriptions, track your fitness, and so on - all with one device. Never mind basics like location and navigation, which aren't even surprising any more. If you ever use a paper street atlas you'll see how convenient they are. The fact that you can't write your own code is of zero interest to most users. They don't want to write their own code. They just want something that makes life simpler. And mobile computing does. The real problem are the social media monopolies and ad tech. But those are a political problem, not a technical one - specifically regulatory capture which neutered the anti-trust laws and allowed most commodity computing to be owned by a handful of monopolies.

pipo234 3y ago

> Was it VC that killed computing? That certainly played a role. But as your first citation already suggests, another major factor is that personal computers have steadily evolved into incredibly complicated systems, the details of which are way beyond what can be harnessed by anyone with the means and willingness to learn...

LeanderK 3y ago
there's also a tension between making things simple and making things customisable. The reality is that for most a computer is not a hobby but a tool. They use it to do something and do not want to babysit it. The simpler, the better. Ideally no interaction required beside the interaction you want. It's similar to cars. Nobody can fix todays cars besides professionals and I bet most have really no idea what's going. But most also don't care because they do not view cars as a hobby but as a tool that just has to work (it usually just works). If they are not required to fix them themselves they won't engage with it at all.
- trasz4 3y ago
  Except todays applications are way less reliable than what we used two decades ago. It's not that we don't _nee to fix them anymore, quite the opposite. Instead we just learned to ignore those screwups, manually refreshing a page when it fails.

teekert 3y ago

Uhm, isn't the world running on Linux, a super open platform with tons of documentation? I feel no real need to join the platforms tbh. Yeah, the platforms are easier, but that's to be expected, addictive fast-food is also easier. "Slow computing" takes some effort, and is not for everyone. But it's there for anyone seeking it out. I'm on Matrix, run NextCloud, use Podverse for podcasts. Anyone can do that (well maybe NextCloud is bit on the technical side).

jdkdldod 3y ago
Matrix is a fake open project controlled by one megalomaniac that successfully brain drained XMPP while everyone in the chat world uses Discord and Teams There was a brief moment ten years ago when XMPP ruled the world. Matrix sucks.
shrimp_emoji 3y ago
Decentralizated computing is inherently "slower" than centralized computing, for example. You're buying flexibility and freedom in exchange for complexity and service degradation. If you think that stuff is worth it, you have to conclude it's like vegetables: they're healthier, but no one will want to eat them, even the people who realize they're heathier. :p
- teekert 3y ago
  If you take time to prepare them right, veggies are great. Even more so when you culture them yourself (even slower!). I come from a culture of: Boil you veggies to death, squash with potatoes, eat (most taste comes from the meat presented on the side). This can be delicious if the veggie is kale, the potatoes are squashed with butter, you add bacon baked in wine vinegar and honey, and eat it with some mustard. But generally the taste is boiled away. But, if you take your chicory for example, fry it, then add some orange juice, steam it a bit, make it into a "tarte tartin" with goat cheese, rocket and sun dried tomatoes on top... That's a new world.
marcosdumay 3y ago
> isn't the world running on Linux? Well, all the powerful entities in IT are. Most people are on Android, that is technically Linux but not open by any standard. Most others are on iOS, that is even less open, besides technically being BSD. Most of the ones trying to get an open platform to do something useful are stuck on Windows, and completely under the whims of a few powerful players.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago

The Byte era was very much "extremely wealthy values of anyone." The original 16K Apple II cost the equivalent of more than $5k. If you wanted 48k - and you did for any kind of non-trivial programming - the equivalent price would be $11k. Computing isn't dead, it's just entirely commoditised. Most people who drive cars don't care about what's under the hood. They don't care they could build themselves a custom engine which is four times as powerful. They just want a transport appliance that works reliably and doesn't cost too much to run. Modern phone-based computing is actually an insane success. Go to a restaurant and you'll get a QR code link to today's menu, which can be changed daily or even hourly. Sometimes you can even order from the table. Go to a show, book a flight, or maybe just use some public transport, and there's a good chance you'll be able to use a digital ticket. Or at least use your phone for payment. You can book medical appointments, fill prescriptions, track your fitness, and so on - all with one device. Never mind basics like location and navigation, which aren't even surprising any more. If you ever use a paper street atlas you'll see how convenient they are. The fact that you can't write your own code is of zero interest to most users. They don't want to write their own code. They just want something that makes life simpler. And mobile computing does. The real problem are the social media monopolies and ad tech. But those are a political problem, not a technical one - specifically regulatory capture which neutered the anti-trust laws and allowed most commodity computing to be owned by a handful of monopolies.