Really appreciate this perspective. Reminds me of this quote from Steve Jobs:
"I'm trying to think of a good analogy. When we were an agrarian nation, all cars were trucks. But as people moved more towards urban centers, people started to get into cars. I think PCs are going to be like trucks. Less people will need them. And this transformation is going to make some people uneasy... because the PC has taken us a long way. They were amazing. But it changes. Vested interests are going to change. And, I think we've embarked on that change. Is it the iPad? Who knows? Will it be next year or five years? ... We like to talk about the post-PC era, but when it really starts to happen, it's uncomfortable."
It's uncomfortable because it's wrong and there is big resistance. I am part of that resistance.
The transition from the fragmented computer market in the 80's brought relief via standardisation into the clone PC and the rise of the Internet. Now it's fragmenting again into separate walled gardens.
The post-PC era that everyone keeps rabbiting on about is a battle between the big players. We'll all lose and be back to separate non-connected ecosystems, just like the 80's when you had a BBC micro and everyone else had C64's so you couldn't play last ninja...
Its already happened in the mobile space which consists of three ecosystems and some "promoted as ridiculous and unfashionable" old fashioned telephones.
How is more choice and innovation a bad thing? What actual cross-system limitations are you worried about?
I switch from iOS to Android seamlessly, as my digital life is platform agnostic. I am more invested in Google's ecosystem in terms of where my data lives, but until they remove the ability to export/sync that data (e.g. I can download all Drive files at once, and simultaneously convert them to Office or PDF format), I don't feel all that "walled".
It's not more choice, as the only outcome is choosing which garden you are slowly walled into. Gaining market share is the desired outcome only as the shareholders need to see growth.
The innovation stops when you are captive. We all learned this in the 90's with Microsoft. People are quite young or have a short memory I'm sure.
I have no problem with limitations. I have a problem investing time and money in something that cannot be used under my terms. The computer is my minion, not my taskmaster not a convenient pipe to shove content down my throat (I already have a television thank you).
Witness the rise of "web services" that will only work when used with proprietary browsers run on a trusted OS on trusted hardware. Netflix on the Chromebook is a harbinger of things to come.
It's not a harbinger, it's a remnant. Netflix can keep imposing device limitations, but those devices are converging in capabilities and the transition between them is becoming more fluid.
It's in the best interest of companies like Netflix – or a disruptor – to design a service/business model that is in-line w/ the reality of device usage, not to try to change it.
> those devices are converging in capabilities and the transition between them is becoming more fluid.
Transition between authorized/trusted devices is fluid. A concept that did not exist in the recent past (or if it existed, existed only in very obscure niches, like custom test-taking software used in only a few niches of education). That is the point I am making.
"I'm trying to think of a good analogy. When we were an agrarian nation, all cars were trucks. But as people moved more towards urban centers, people started to get into cars. I think PCs are going to be like trucks. Less people will need them. And this transformation is going to make some people uneasy... because the PC has taken us a long way. They were amazing. But it changes. Vested interests are going to change. And, I think we've embarked on that change. Is it the iPad? Who knows? Will it be next year or five years? ... We like to talk about the post-PC era, but when it really starts to happen, it's uncomfortable."