Slashdot Mirror
Marc Andreessen Describes Vision of 'Ambient Computing' (telegraph.co.uk)
An anonymous reader writes: Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Netscape, is one of the biggest investors in technology. In an interview with The Telegraph, he spoke about how he envisions the future of computing. It's essentially an extension on the idea of the "Internet of Things." He thinks mobile phones will begin to be replaced in just 10 years. "The idea that we have a single piece of glowing display is too limiting. By then, every table, every wall, every surface will have a screen or can project." Within 20 years, he expects most new physical objects to have some sort of chip implanted within them. "The end state is fairly obvious — every light, every doorknob will be connected to the internet." The term for this is "ambient computing." There will obviously be a transition period — perhaps the so-called internet of things is just an early phase of that transition. But with powerful chips and sensors becoming incredibly cheap, Andreessen's scenario seems possible. I guess it's time to get cracking on those security and privacy concerns.
The "Internet of Things" will be nothing but a gigantic clusterfuck, due to the fact that nobody gives two shits about security.
Sounds like the state of the world only a decade before the subjugation of the human race.
There is already a domain where ubiquitous integration of high complexity capabilities into virtually all materials with room for them is a reality.
We call it "Biology". And, in my professional capacity as a fungus, let me remind you that you'd be fucking insane to want your computers to go down that path.
It's impressive that machines made of meat work at all; but that doesn't change the fact that they are tottering heaps of uncontrolled complexity, riddled with pathogens and parasites, kept alive only because they are (sometimes) more fault-tolerant than they are faulty; and because the various microorganism militias are too busy fighting assorted cryptic metabolic battles and it is possible to enter alliances of convenience with some of them, if you get lucky.
People have done a terrible enough job keeping a bunch of loosely-linked deterministic finite state machines from descending into a putrid jungle of malware that inspires comparison to unpleasant biological outcomes. You want to add more; and link them more tightly? Have fun with that.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.
The more complex a system, the easier it is to disrupt. Last week we lost power one evening for a couple of hours and my young daughter didn't know what to do. She couldn't understand why nothing except her iPad would work. No TV, no computer, no Internet, no music, no texting, no contact with anyone not physically in her presence. But at least she could access the refrigerator and her room.
If, as suggested in the summary, "every light, every doorknob will be connected to the internet." then she wouldn't be able open a door or even enter or exit the house without approval from some server. Lack of power or a lack of connectivity would be a serious impediment to simply living in a house. Would all these things be controlled from a house server? Is everyone going to become a sysop? And think what a hacker could do with access to the house server. Or a burglar.
Or am I misunderstanding how this would all work?
That line edited for the summary (and people say editors don't do anything) actually goes like this:
"The idea that we have a single piece of glowing display is too limiting.
By then, every table, every wall, every surface will have a screen or can project," he told the Telegraph.
"Hypothetically you walk upto a wall, sit at a table and [talk to] an earpiece or eyeglasses to make a call. The term is ambient or ubiquitous computing."
If tables, walls etc. have screens or projectors - why special earpieces or glasses?
If special glasses are ubiquitous - who needs screens in tables and walls? Wouldn't empty and clean flat surfaces be far more useful then?
And what's the use of a chip in a chair? To tell you that it is occupied or not? Wouldn't a single camera in the room do that and more?
Article further gives examples such as:
Pharmaceutical companies transporting drugs or vaccines need to constantly monitor temperature;
logistics or delivery companies track their fleet of vehicles over long distances;
and perishable food companies need to monitor internal temperature and humidity of trucks to check if their goods are spoiling.
None of that is "Internet of Things" or "ambient or ubiquitous computing" nor would those examples benefit from chips and sensors on every single item that is being transported in those trucks.
Why then all those additional sensors?
Well... cause it would be expensive to make dedicated case by case monitoring systems to replace somewhat manual (but cheap) solutions already employed. As in, there's an employee doing that right now.
So the solution is to cover EVERYTHING with sensors instead.
Thus eliminating the cost of installing sensors and networks by shifting it to every producer of everything in the world.
Who would then shift that cost (and all the unnecessary "features" they'd have to invent for their products) - to the customers.
While "the cloud" will pick up the rest.
Thus, "reducing the costs" of creating "ubiquitous computing" to software only - i.e. nothing, as developers are already being paid anyway, or they'll just do it for fun and experience.
That's the logic.
"The problem is that manual measurements are very common in hospitals, pharmaceutical delivery chains, and even the distribution of dairy and meat produce.
Someone actually goes to the warehouse to fill out a report with pen and paper every 3 hours," says Samsara's CEO Sanjit Biswas, whose previous network technology startup Meraki sold to Cisco for over $2 billion.
His big idea: installing cheap sensors, and uploading and analysing data to the cloud makes Samara 1/10th of the cost of existing industrial sensors (complex systems made by huge incumbents like Intel), and deployable in under 10 minutes.
"If you want a tailored system, someone like IBM will build you a custom solution but it usually costs $5m so it doesn't make sense unless you're a large company," he explains.
Andreessen is a fierce believer in the impact of this wave of software-driven sensor startups.
His core thesis is that over the next 20 years every physical item will have a chip implanted in it.
"The end state is fairly obvious - every light, every doorknob will be connected to the internet.
Just like with the web itself, there will be thousands of of use cases - energy efficiency, food safety, major problems that aren't as obvious as smartwatches and wearables," he says.
Except that is not "software-driven sensors" but "sensor-driven software".
Which relies on someone first providing ubiquitous sensors in every doorknob - which could then be used for "major problems that aren't as obvious".
I.e. It's a solution we don't really have a problem for quite yet. But it would be great if someone else paid for it.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I'm sure that some people want to connect their door knobs and white goods to the internet, I'm also sure they are a tiny minority within the general population. Way back in the 90's a friend on mine worked on a fluro lighting system for supermarkets that could be used to change shelf price displays, great idea, brilliant engineering, but it turns out college students with a pen are cheaper.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Marc Andreessen over-estimates his mental ability. He accidentally made a lot of money. Now he thinks he is intelligent.
I'm still not seeing a strong use case for having every-thing connected ..
Certainly for things like furniture, just as not all those objects or walls will have need for a display.
It goes back to an old recycling meme .. the "you can extract petroleum, refine it, form it into pellets, form that into a fork, transport it to market where it is bought, transported to place of use and than finally -- used and discarded .. or you can wash the fork and set it aside for reuse".
Meaning in this context, you _could_ have the tables and chairs in a diner report their utilization and/or have a system optimally place customers to enable more people to be served in a given period .. or you can allow the much simpler approach customers use of "sit at an open table".
I'm struck that so many predictions of the future embody two simplistic and misguided assumptions. 1) That the future will progress in a straight line as an extension of the present and 2) that new technology is unquestionably an improvement.
One would think that with the current speed of development we would have developed some degree of immunity to the hypnotic allure of techno-pizzazz for its own sake.
THIS. Unfortunatly, I am all out of mod points, but Mr. AC here speaks the truth. Predictions in the past, that we'd have all diseases cured by 2000, were absolutly ridiculous because they assumed that the rate of drug development would increase linearly. No, we'd just picked the easy fruit, and then it slowed down. For those here who are really old, thry might remember back in the 70's when everybody was told that nuclear power was the way of the future. After all, it was obviously superior to every alternative, how could it lose? And yet, it did, because of the fear over a nuclear fallout (something I personally think was a somewhat silly fear, but I'll keep my opinion out of this).
We're all terrible at predicting the future in advance, and that's not necessarily a bad thing or a good one, but I really wish peope kept it more in mind. Seeing these vague future predictions just makes me facepalm, especially because the articld doesn't even really say why we would need sensors in anything (nor the rather significant cost and saftey hazards of doing so). I would be much more interested of the future two years from now, in the very beginning of 2018. Two and half years ago, the world didn't even know about PRISM, might I remind you.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Although, they called it "ubiquitous computing". There were connected white-boards and sticky notes all over PARC when I visited there back in the 1980s. Anywhere a few people could have a hallway meeting, in the conference areas, and work spaces, scribbled ideas could be worked out saved and distributed, and recalled, as needed. Took a fair amount of back-end horsepower, but that was before a 64-bit computer fit on your wrist.
It had definite value to a creative group, as they had then, but in most workspaces or residences, it would just be distributing drivel and be a security nightmare.
It's like seeing a sports star who was great back in the day, or an artist who did one good album.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."