Thirty Years in Computing

Jacob writes "Jacob Nielsen, usability guru, writes about the last 30 years of computing and his predictions of the next 30 years of computing. An interesting read. quote: 'Computer games in 2034 are likely to offer simulated worlds and interactive storytelling that's more engaging than linear presentations such as those in most movies today.'"

Comments

we'll never recognize computers

[etcremote]

I predict that in 30 years, what is and isn't a computer will be hard to distinguish.

Re:we'll never recognize computers

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Guy I know once talked about looking at an old Sears & Roebuck catalog from, I think, just before WW1. In it there was a section for early power tools. They sold power saws, screwdrivers, etc. just like they do now. The difference was, though, to use any of these tools, you had to buy a separate motor. This was a bulky thing that you set on your workbench next to your project. It came with a variety of adapters which you could use via a chain drive or something along those lines to power your saw, screwdriver, etc.

The analogy here is pretty plain, I think. I'm not sure that the idea of "the computer" as a separate machine will ever entirely go away, but certainly the computing power in everyday appliances (TV's, radios, hell, even toasters and refrigerators) is growing all the time. The standalone computer may eventually go the way of the standalone power tool motor.

Re:we'll never recognize computers

[dark404]

umm... blurring the line? They ARE computers. A computer is an electronic device that is one thing, and can do three. It must be programable. And it must be able to retrieve, store, and process data.

Re:we'll never recognize computers

[Anubis350]

In thirty years? The line's already become blurry. Is my cell phone a computer? My programmable microwave? The digital parking meters outside my window. Those of us here on slashdot would say instantly yes, that they are a limited computers for specific tasks or at least contain limiting computing power because we know, at least to some extent how they work. But the common consumer would probably say no. So tell me, will it really take 30 years? I think itll probably be far sooner. As I said, the line is already blurred, how soon before it fades altogther? I give it 10 years before the line is too blurry to be able to tell what is a computer and what isnt. --Aaron

Re:we'll never recognize computers

[pgnas]

The most significant convergence will involve the computer and our best friend, the Television.

Computers will be the center of the house. The "Media Center" computers are in the infant stages, these are the early attempts to bring the computer to the part of your house that currently receives the most attention.

When this technology becomes seamless, television will become an interactive and more personalized experience.

Do you like the outfit that Jennifer Lopez is wearing? "Click here to buy". "MMM, that pizza looks good" click here to have one delivered.

Personalization will allow for advertisers to provide to you the things that you are interested in making their advertisements more effective.

In addition, Television re-runs and first-runs will be individually selected and provided on-demand.

Re:we'll never recognize computers

[joggle]

I don't know about all of that. While some things may become cheaper, many things will simply become better (not cheaper).

For instance, those power tools in that old Sears catalog probably didn't cost more than modern power tools, possibly less since they were simpler and didn't each have their own motor and battery (even after adjusting for inflation). Laptops only cost about $1000 less than they did 15 years ago and have been pretty steady for the last 6 years or so.

I predict that many technologies will start off relatively expensive and then stabilize after 5-10 years, just as many technologies before them did (TVs, microwaves, etc.).

Re:we'll never recognize computers

[Kyosuke77]

Is my cell phone a computer?

I know mine is. The damn thing takes a leisurely 10 seconds to boot up when I press the power button. I thought it was ridiculous when I got it, and equally ridiculous was the fact that it seems to allow for firmware upgrades.

With modern cellphones incorporating fairly complex computing tasks like voice recognition, internet access, modem functionality, and digital image and video processing, not only are they computers, but they're easily as powerful as desktop PCs were 13 years ago, if not moreso. And , on top of all that, they inherently (being cellphones) have some pretty advanced wireless networking technology with widely accessible connectivity.

And if anybody still doesn't believe me, I'll gladly crack open their cell phone and show them the CPU.

Think outside the box!

[erick99]

I'm sorry but this is not how you look into the future:simple extrapolation of the present. Nielsen simply takes all of the features we look at today and scales them up (3PHz processor, exabyte hard drives, etc.). My God, whatever computers look like in 30 years will probably bear little semblance to what we use today.

He and other futurists might do better to look at what we use computers for now and what we don't, but could, use them for in the future. They could also think way outside the box and think about how computers will physically change (will it still be everything in one box or will the hardware be as distributed as software can be) or how computers will integrate into everyday life.

I guess I expected a bit more imagination. 30 years is an awfully long time in terms of technological development.

Keep smiling!

Erick

Re:Think outside the box!

[SerpentMage]

No kidding... The article is so lacking in imagination it is not even funny.

I even doubt that he is right. The reason is because it will become impractical. Right now we have plenty of CPU power on the desktop. For example we can build cars (drag racers) with 2000HP, but is it practical for a mainstream car? Not with oil prices being what they are.

As you point out computers will integrate into mainstream and the features that we pre-occupy ourselves with (RAM, CPU Speed, etc) will become irrelevant. Even now I do not say the MHZ of my computers, as it is not proportional to performance.

Re:Think outside the box!

[Deflagro]

Again i'd have to point to Kurzweil about this. People don't realise how quickly we've advanced since the computer was created. Every technology we create only fuels new techs with fuels new ones exponentially.
In one century we've experienced multiple revolutions, industrial and technological. Considering we've been around over 10 times that long (civilised anyhow), i'd say it's amazing.

I just think tech advancement happens on a much shorter scale as you'd have to change the measurement yearly almost.

I think it's exciting that i'll be alive to see some really crazy advancements, as long as human nature stays out of it and we don't destroy everything.

Re:Think outside the box!

[badasscat]

Actually, the extrapolation procedure doesn't work too bad. It's just a matter of connecting the dots. I have a book from 20+ years ago about the future of video games. Some of the claims were:

* Games could allow more than two players. Perhaps even enough to play a full game of soccer or football! (The picture showed a "dome" with controls in a ring around it.)
* Games will be able to be played over great distances! (The picture showed a chess board with a wireless antenna on it.)
* Games will be so much more realistic! (Shows a handheld game with a full scene of a motor bike jumping a dirt ramp.)

It's no stretch to think that in the future, graphics will be better, and different types of games will be possible with more computing power. But statements like the following have really becoome a pet peeve of mine:

Computer games in 2034 are likely to offer simulated worlds and interactive storytelling that's more engaging than linear presentations such as those in most movies today.

News flash: people *like* linear presentations and plotlines. We don't have linear presentations in games right now because of any technical limitation in the medium, we have them because that's what people *want*. Case in point: the Final Fantasy series. FFXI - the first MMORPG in the series - has sold fewer than 700,000 copies worldwide on both the PC and PS2. FFX - the last truly linear game in the series - sold 5 *million* copies on *one* system. FFX-2 was offline but also not linear, and it was criticized by some as a result and did not sell as well as FFX. Part of the reason people buy games in this series is *because* of the linear story-telling in them.

There will be a market for both types of games in the future, as there is now. I'm not saying linear games are all the market has room for. But we've had linear presentations in various mediums going back *thousands* of years; it's a method of storytelling that's been perfected by many skilled artisans. Can you imagine Shakespeare as a choose-your-own-adventure? Our human desire for linear stories goes much deeper than simple technical limitations; such stories are present in all cultures and have been basically since man learned to communicate.

There's nothing "more engaging" about persistent worlds; in fact they've already become passe, with most MMORPG's just copying each other. It's just a different style of gameplay, which has yet to reach maturity. Someday it will, but there is nothing inherently superior about that method of gameplay, just as there is nothing inherently superior in sports games vs. RPG's or in fighting games vs. platformers. They're just different genres.

I don't have any problem with extrapolation to predict the future in computing, because most of that extrapolation is born of the assumption that processors will continue to get faster, and applications more complex. I think that's a safe assumption to make. But I do have problems with expectations of fundamental shifts in the way humans have enjoyed their leisure time for centuries just because a faster CPU enables them to. It's not up to consumers to fit their interests around their PC's; it's up to hardware manufacturers and application designers to fit their products to consumers' interests.

Re:Think outside the box!

[Dun Malg]

He and other futurists might do better to look at what we use computers for now and what we don't, but could, use them for in the future. They could also think way outside the box and think about how computers will physically change (will it still be everything in one box or will the hardware be as distributed as software can be) or how computers will integrate into everyday life.

Yeah, I've heard "futurists" like him before. One goofball suggested that "in the future" we would store ALL our music on a disc the size of a dime that we'd be able to carry around with us everywhere and, when we purchase an album, we'd hand the clerk our disc and they'd add the music to it. Totally fails to take into account the "lose- and steal-ability" of a dime-sized disc. Pure extrapolation only works up to a certain point, then you have to ask yourself, "why?"

I doubt there will be immersive storylines

[lawpoop]

These people should do some reading on narrative theory.

A story is a meaning applied to events after they have occured. A game is a game, like sports or a board game. You can only make a story out of it after events have been completed. A story has a status quo, an event that disrupts that status quo, and a hero who overcomes a challenge to create a new status quo. You can only joing narrative events to actual events after they have all taken place. If you have a wandering storyline, what's to say that this particular event is the shift to the 2nd or 3rd act? It's only after you have everything that you can make a complete story. And that's not to say that there's only one story. Any event might serve as any of the narrative events, depending on the story you're telling.

Re:I doubt there will be immersive storylines

[lawpoop]

Remember that a story is something you tell after the fact. It has a punchline, like a joke. Something that hits you. Good stories are planned out, and their telling is practiced.

For good, unplanned stories to happen, I think that will only happen in MMORPGS with either great AI (unlikely), or a lot of freedom for avatars. And then, again, *a story will be a re-telling of events that have already happened* . Hey, did you see what happened in $_MMORPG yesterday? I finally got my castle fortifications set up, and that jerk Ermond did a surprise attacks, but he didn't know that I had a pet dragon, so I let his forces in, and they all died a fiery death! That'll teach him.

The thing is that currently, a computer doesn't have enough AI to be a narrator. Right now only a human being can wedge events into a narrative stream and tell it to someone.

Re:I doubt there will be immersive storylines

[zephiros]

A story is a meaning applied to events after they have occured. A game is a game, like sports or a board game. You can only make a story out of it after events have been completed.

I will never understand why this old chestnut appears every time there's a discussion of interactive storytelling.

By your definition, fiction is impossible. When the author sits down with a blank sheet of paper, he should be stuck, since there are no past events for him to relate.

But of course, we know this isn't the case. Even school children are capable of inventing fanciful, novel stories. The path to interactive storytelling is collaboration between the player and the computer to produce a narrative which is both interesting to the player and dramatically compelling. The narrative is a product of this process, it is not the process itself.

Perhaps we need to come up with a new term. When people say "interactive story" they obviously don't mean "give me a book I can shove into my Playstation." They mean "give me a piece of software that allows me to have an experience similar to reading a good book, but also provides me agency, and allows me to control how I experience events."

uh....

[Thud457]

You overlooked the crucial part of the quote:

"Computer games in 2034 are likely to offer simulated worlds and interactive storytelling that's more engaging than linear presentations such as those in most movies today "

Even some of today's primitive games have most movies beat... (watching Hollywood eat it's young at a prodigious rate, I sometimes think "Tetris" is more complex, multifaceted and emotional storytelling.)

Half an exabyte of hard disk equivalent storage

[mst76]

can hold every movie and sound track ever published.

Re:Half an exabyte of hard disk equivalent storage

[Anubis350]

ah, but by the time we have it more movies and sountracks will be published, in higher quality that take up more space.

Thanks, I like my passives very much.

[RoufTop]

People have been expecting these interactive movie worlds to tell us non-linear stories for at least a decade. There are several problems with this line of thinking: it's far more expensive to tell a non-linear story than a linear one, moviemakers are much better at telling stories than audiences, and people LIKE linear stories.

Alternate endings to movies on DVD's and open-ended worlds in games like GTA are good examples of the kinds of things we'll be doing for a while. But a story told from a million angles? Forget it. Even with technology to create those worlds, you still need to think about, well, everything, and all the consequences of every action. It's not gonna happen.

What we like about linear stories is their flow from conflict to resolution. And we see movies because the people that make them are good at what they do. The original storytellers around a fire could have sat there waiting for their "users" to interact with them ("storyteller, put the mail on the duffel bag" :-), but instead they were valued for their imagination and timing.

rouftop

Too far in the future...

[dylan_-]

I think it's crazy trying to predict 30 years in the future unless as a sci-fi scenario.

I mean, if you'd asked me in 1974 what things would be like in 2004 I simply couldn't have guessed what we'd have now. Actually, I'd probably just have replied "Goo! Gah gah gah! Whaaaah!" but that's besides the point...

My computing prediction.

[Sunken Kursk]

Given the way it seems DRM and such have been going recently, I have a different view of where home computers will be in the future...

In the past, Internet Terminals were heralded as the wave of the future. This was because of their convenience, ease of use, etc. I see them now as the wave of the future because they don't store content. They are simply a gateway into someone else's content. Once the RIAA and MPAA have finished their buyout of the legislative and legal system, new regulations will require that computers not store any information. That way the big guys don't have to worry about the little guy sharing music or downloading the latest episode of Law & Order - Pothole Repair Crew for free. To listen to music, plug in your credit-card and connect to their services. Only $5.99 for an hour's worth of music. Want to play the latest game? Only $2.99 to plug into the Doom 5 server and play.

This can even extend to the workplace. Microsoft Office Services. For $15,000 per year, you can get a 10 connection license to allow your employees to work on presentations, software requirements, etc. Then for only $150,000 per year, two of your developers can connect to Microsoft Development Studio Services and work on that software you need written. Then for the low-low price of $200,000 per year, Microsoft will go ahead and host the software you wrote. Imagine, you don't have to worry about backups, and you'll never need to worry about the BSA pounding down your door.

All that needs to happen is widespread acceptance and availability of broadband. This is sure to have happened in 30 years.

Think this can't happen? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Re:No, in a visor.

[Greyfox]

They'll actually have the visor by 2007. It'll take another 30 years to make it cool.

What's the benefit?

[CycleMan]

Okay, petabytes and exabytes sound interesting from a "Wow - technology" perspective, but why do I care? Will they improve how we live our lives, increase the amount of face time we spend with each other, decrease hunger and poverty, elevate the human spirit or cure race relations?

That amount of computer storage probably won't be enough to help men understand women. =)

I'm growing in favour of technology being just a little more clunky and difficult so that people will move their heads away from the monitor once in a while - and not just to make new PC mods.

Re:Control versus centralization

[mschuyler]

Why do you cringe? I'm replacing 150 public computers with $300 thin clients coming off a terminal server (well, a cluster of them), just exactly what you are talking about. Right now, if I need to change anything, I have to visit 150 computers individually, even for the tiniest tweak of a config file. Plus I have to lock these things down tight because John Q. is either stupid and wrecks stuff unintentionally, or he's trying to show me how clever he is by sabotaging the machines and attempting to hack my system. So that means stuff like Centurion Guard, Fortres, keys, and all kinds of crap that wastes my time.

With thin clients, I make the same change on the server and it's all done. It IS a return to the mainframe model, and it's one I'm extremely happy about because it will make my life so much simpler. Once I get these 150 done I'm going after 150 staff computers. Most people simply do not need real PCs, and half of them couldn't see a difference anyway. As long as they get a login screen and a desktop they couldn't care less if the files they create are stored on a server or locally, or whether they have a hard drive somewhere under their desks. Sure, there are a few folks who are going to need local storage for various reasons, so they can keep their PCs. But the vast majority simply don't need it. I'm also saving money. Even when you amortize the servers over the number of thin clients they can support, my capital cost is half what it would be for PCs.

I surely would not advocate that approach for any of us, perish the thought. But in the real world in a production environment, which slashdot certainly is not, it's a viable solution.

You want really hightech computers...

[kabocox]

I don't want to ever have to see another computer again. Period. I want a watch, eye and ear improvements. I want my eye improvement to be able to give me 20/20 vision. I want it to record everything that I've ever experienced and beable to display anything to the same level. The ear implants should be able to record both ears worth of audio in the full human hearing range and store it. It should be able to reproduce almost any sound that the human ear can perceive. The watch should be where everything is stored, the CPU where everything is processed, and is easily removable and replacable when we figure out how to make smaller, faster, and cheaper watches. Oh, the watch should tell time and GPS as well.

The next big thing will be the touch interface.

Re:IN 30 years,,,,

[SoCalChris]

I think technology will keep getting better, but we'll see it less. In fact, it is already happening.

Take Tivo for instance. A few years ago, if you wanted to record something, you had to set up your VCR, program it, make sure there was a blank tape, etc... Now you just punch into your Tivo that you like certain kinds of shows, and they are recorded for you. In the future, devices like Tivo probably won't even need you to tell it what to record, it will know what you want to record based on what you watch most.

Another example is cars. The new Mercedes recognize who is driving, and adjust the seats/mirrors/stereo to what that driver likes automatically. They also recognize if a seat is empty, and in an accident it won't deploy the airbags for empty seats. Some of the new cars don't even require a key to start any more. The owner carries a card with a RFID chip in their wallet that the car recognizes, and allows them to drive the car without having to use a key. Even 10 years ago, the things that are standard on a lot of new cars would have been unimaginable.

I think things will keep getting far more technologically advanced, but we will see it less and less.

The Star Trek Holodeck

[Kyosuke77]

I always thought the holodeck represented what they thought would be the ultimate in video game technology 400 years into the future. However there was a well known problem with it, which in later series' acquired the name 'holoadditcion'. Basically, it created completely immersive worlds that were completely real to all the senses, down to the finesse of actual replicated matter for some elements. It was something so powerful it made Evercrack addiction look like the equivalent of a jones for skittles versus heroin. Nevertheless, I'd say that a prediction that video games evolving into, or at least approaching, something that involves complete immersion in a photo-realistic, randomly interactive environment is actually nothing new. If you look at the present, we have video cards that can render 'cinematic' quality graphics in real time at resolutions of several megapixels. To put it mildly, we've come a long way from Pong.

Re:Computer will replace certain kinds of workers

[Have Blue]

A computer could easily replace the DSM and probably has already done so in many places, but if you really think that's all that doctors do and is the only skill required to practice medicine then I'd really hate to end up in your operating theater.

Re:The Turing Point...

[thakadu]

I am willing to bet that this will NEVER happen with the current von Neuman design of computers which is basically what Nielsen thinks will still be the norm in 2034. You need a differnt design to get consciusness (whatever that is).

linear story telling

[hak1du]

No matter how you author or present a story, people will still experience it in some linear order. Authors spend a lot of time worrying that the order a reader actually gets is interesting and makes sense; that's what a big part of good writing is all about. Linearity is something that is an added value for a story, not a restriction.

Many games may well be "non-linear" (i.e., have many different paths), but that's not to make them more engaging, it's to make them more replayable. And there will also continue to be many highly linear games that present a single, well-designed storyline as part of the game, although hopefully authors will find ways of making the interaction with the storyline more natural than "you must find switch A and trigger it to continue".

My guess

[Pendersempai]

Processing and storage will be recentralized.

Imagine: a couple hundred corporations around the united states each have dedicated facilities to process and/or store information. Other companies network these commodities to cohere the aspects of computing. These companies could specialize in redundancy/dependability, power, or affordability. You subscribe to one of these companies' services, and they give you a username and password. Now, you can use any compatible I/O device, log in, and you're at your (virtual) computer.

These I/O devices could be anything from a current monitor/keyboard/mouse desk setup to a wireless touchscreen you carry around with you (assuming pervasive WiFi). Even if it's a palmtop, it'll have all the processing power and storage of your desktop setup. So a gameboy would be just as powerful as a desktop system, and a no-moving-parts $10 MP3 player could access your entire hard drive. The virtual computer recognizes which device you're using to access it, and adopts its interface accordingly.

But the I/O devices could start posing as appliances: your kitchen telephone AND your cell phone are just computer terminals. Your coffee maker takes commands from the virtual computer: once you've set your alarm clock (another computer I/O device), your coffee maker knows when to start preparing a morning pot of coffee.

I don't even care to speculate what this model would do to our legal battles over IP and DRM; I think 30 years is far enough in the future that the technology will remake the legality beyond recognition.

The barriers to this model of computing are bandwidth and (to a lesser extent) wireless permittivity. Many of the gains could be recognized even with only wired technology -- it's just that the alarm clock, coffee maker, and mp3 player would have to jack in to a wall port somewhere.

in 30 years...

[hak1du]

I don't need Nielsen to tell me that computers will be faster and displays will be bigger (although it is likely that Moore's law will have fallen by then).

Nielssen seems to be saying that computers will be used largely the same way they are being used today, with some obvious tweaks. While computers have gotten faster, fundamentally, we have made little progress in how we interact with them over the last 30 years (Smalltalk and the Alto were being developed in the 1970s and contained most of the paradigms that the most advanced commercial desktops are using today), and Nielssen is basically saying that not much will change over the next 30 years either. That may excite him, since it allows him to continue to peddle his user interface incrementalism, but, frankly, I find it depressing.

One thing is certain: in 30 years, we will still have self-appointed "gurus" that make a name and a business for themselves by repeating populist techno-babble and buzzwords, but without having any real insight or vision. That has nothing to do with computers, it is just human nature, and that won't change.

Exactly!

[fiannaFailMan]

I never could figure out the point of the 'holonovel' in Star Trek. Why go to the trouble of taking part in the story of Wuthering Heights if you first have to read the story, learn your lines, and go through the motions of the character? I mean, supposing you're playing Cathy and you decide to marry Heathecliffe. Well then you all live happily ever after and the story is no longer Wuthering Heights.

Re:One prediction - fewer/more programmers

[pyrotic]

This implies that either 1) language has no ambiguities, or 2) artificial intelligence is possible. Rewind 30 years ago, and see how far AI has come. Not very. But in 30 years we've learnt a lot on language, and it's very ambiguous. Which is why no one wants to program in Engligh, when they can use Perl or C or some other abstraction. Will AI be possible? Your assumption is that it will. I'm not so sure.

Re:Compu...what?

[mr_mischief]

They're bigger because we wanted user-upgradable parts. They're louder because they need to be reliable and not burn up in a couple of months -- it's one of the prices of getting faster. They're less secure because we're connecting them to one another to enable things we couldn't easily do 15-20 years ago.

You can easily buy an SBC with an AMD Geode 1 GHz CPU and 128 megs of RAM, put your storage on CompactFlash with an IDE convertor, and have integrated Ethernet on it. With no fans needed and solid-state storage, it'd be quiet. With everything but the CF on one board, it'd be small. It would run most software people run on the stock desktops.

VMS indeed does do versioned filesystems. It's not too long, I'm sure, before there's a Linux filesystem that implements it at the FS level if there's not already. Until then, there are versioning systems at the application level.

There are all kinds of software we have now that we didn't 15-20 years ago. You're almost certainly reading /. on a web browser. SMTP/POP3 email software certainly wasn't the norm on desktops 20 years ago. We have much better animation now than then. We have realistic computer audio done mostly in software (this is enabled largely by the processor speeds and memory sizes, but the software to take advantage of it is fairly new). Instant messengers which work outside the LAN are certainly new within the last 15 years. The programming languages used to write other software have changed much over the last 15-20 years. Machine translation of natural languages was a dream 20 years ago, but now it's getting reasonably accurate. Software in just the last couple of years has taken big strides toward displaying everyone's languages together on screen in the proper character sets -- even with more than one alphabet in use at a time. Desktop operating systems have come from offering filesystem services and port access to one program at a time through the days of cooperative multitasking into the days of memory-protected preeemptive multitasking and even machine virtualization.

Sure, the uses of the individual applications may not have changed much -- reading text, editing text, listening to sounds, playing games, todo lists, calendars, address books, etc. Tewnty years ago, though, could you open your address book, drag a CD-quality sound clip into it, and type an annotaion before clicking a button to send it to someone on another continent?

Re:Morrowind

[Anonymous Coward]

He said "Non-scripted events (like mass thievery or murder) have little or no effect on gameplay".

You replied "No, because I completed a scripted quest and it had an effect".

Think before you speak.