First there were mainframes that offered lot's of power and high levels of privacy, but were limited in user access.
Then there were Personal Computers that offered limited power, but wide user adoption and maintained privacy.
Then there was the "Cloud" that offered virtually unlimited power AND wide user adoption but disregarded privacy.
The future is going to be to go back to personal computers/servers that control data locally and privately but now can offer virtually unlimited power and connection.
I know DST is generally stupid and bad, but that's the wrong time to end. DST is the good time where you get home from work and can still actually see the sun. Humans still primarily do stuff in the daytime.
Let's make everything DST. Abandon "StandardTime" or whatever it is called in the sucky months.
Websites market to basically every human. That means the 95% of humanity that isn't tech nerds. There are a few other software suites like this. Namely Office Suites. MS Office hasn't really had a big change since 2007 -and LOTS of people hated it when they did. Facebook, Google, etc. all have to cater to the bottom 90% of users. That bottom 90% doesn't like change very much, so features are added very slowly.
Most all the rest of the software on the planet is marketed to tech nerds -people that will actually PAY for software. To keep the money coming, the companies have to keep new features coming.
Me: Your new magazine you got from your grandmother for your birthday came in the mail. Do you want to read it tonight for bedtime? 4yo: [Confused] Magazines aren't for reading. Me: What are they for? 4yo: [Stated with an tone of obviousness] Magazines are for cutting.
I like the definition of life that basically says that anything that reproduces itself and evolves through natural selection is alive. That would include viruses, which would be the simplest form of life on earth.
"Will the trends thats true for the embedded systems ever be true for things like workstation CPUs?"
It certainly will. Eventually. I know this because there is a limit to maximum possible processing power on a chip because we still have to make things out of atoms and molecules. That doesn't mean innovation will stop entirely. Not at all. Think of it like knives. Knives are literally the oldest human invention -actually being invented before modern humans evolved. Even still, despite being hundreds of thousands of years old, clever designer can still design a new better knives. New knives are being designed all the time, mostly for hyper-specialized tasks or knives with special materials or designs. But, ultimately, for 99.99999% of uses, basically any ol' normal high quality knife will do the job fine. Even for specialized skills. Processors will go the same way. Even high end processors. Engineers can rearrange things endlessly, and build specific chips for super-specialized tasks, but eventually, for most every use for most person, CPU processors will become commodity products and become generic tools.
"and in other scenario they stole all the tech and compete with West, only without having to pay amortization for the cost of innovation."
The third, and most likely, scenario is that -over the next few generations- innovation in chip design becomes a diminishing investment, the patents expire, and microchips become commodities just like every other industry.
Consider this: today there are not very many significant paper plate patents filed. Paper plates, while once innovative, are a commodity product. If you want, you could start your own paper plate business and try to sell your plates. But basically the only thing you would have to sell on is your brand, your product is going to be basically the same as everyone else's. It's a paper plate. Micro chips are, eventually, going to go the same way. The patents will expire and anyone who wants to make and sell microchips will be able to do so. It's inevitable. It's just a matter of time.
This is capitalism's Achilles Heel. Businesses are run on short term thinking. Sure your trade secrets are going to get stolen and they are going to use your tech to kick you out of there market in two years, but don't you want to do business in China today? Selling in the Chinese market will increase your stock price next quarter.
Nevertheless, in the long term (multigenerational term), it doesn't matter, they are going to figure it out for themselves one way or the other anyway.
All of that is true if you look at the country as a whole. But if you break the country out into classes a different story unfolds. Upper and upper-middle incomes have greatly improved. Healthcare is pretty in America great for those with upper-middle class jobs. Housing selection across the country is great for those with upper-middle incomes.
The story is very different for those on the lower end of the spectrum, but those people aren't the ones in positions to start-up new companies, which is the point of the original post.
But this has limited predictability. For example, how many new advertising consulting businesses are there each year. Of course there are lots, but I bet you would find that the rate of ad agency start-up has similarly decreased significantly over the decades. Can't really blame OSHA or the EPA for that.
Honestly I think it's mostly that being a middle-class employee is generally becoming a better trade for the employee. If you have a salaried position (guaranteed reliable and regular pay), have general health benefits, and an IRA or 401K, why would you throw that away just to work harder and be responsible for entire company?
Being a lower-class employee is getting worse, but those people are less likely to have the ability to raise the funds necessary to start their own companies.
Start up risk is huge. That's the problem. It's massive. Sure there are some people that are successful and the risk pays dividends, but success is actually pretty rare. Most rational people look at the risk of starting your own company and shrug it off because simply being an employee is typically not that bad of a deal. In fact, it's really a pretty good deal. Your risk is greatly limited. Most people are perfectly ok with that.
Slashdot Mirror
How is that any different that what we have today anyway? At least I can control what apps are on my phone.
How I wish the whole universe would switch to 2-part ID. I would happily make my phone, or a USB key mandatory for every single sign on attempt.
Security through obscurity?
First there were mainframes that offered lot's of power and high levels of privacy, but were limited in user access.
Then there were Personal Computers that offered limited power, but wide user adoption and maintained privacy.
Then there was the "Cloud" that offered virtually unlimited power AND wide user adoption but disregarded privacy.
The future is going to be to go back to personal computers/servers that control data locally and privately but now can offer virtually unlimited power and connection.
I know DST is generally stupid and bad, but that's the wrong time to end. DST is the good time where you get home from work and can still actually see the sun. Humans still primarily do stuff in the daytime.
Let's make everything DST. Abandon "StandardTime" or whatever it is called in the sucky months.
But if Amazon offered to upgrade me, I would probably accept.
Websites market to basically every human. That means the 95% of humanity that isn't tech nerds. There are a few other software suites like this. Namely Office Suites. MS Office hasn't really had a big change since 2007 -and LOTS of people hated it when they did. Facebook, Google, etc. all have to cater to the bottom 90% of users. That bottom 90% doesn't like change very much, so features are added very slowly.
Most all the rest of the software on the planet is marketed to tech nerds -people that will actually PAY for software. To keep the money coming, the companies have to keep new features coming.
Melania is going to get the boot as a surprise twist during the fall season premier.
Sure thing, Anonymous Coward.
"BitCoin defies logic by remaining just under $6000 over priced."
"Fratboys across the country pissed as their 'sure thing' trust fund investment continues to fall"
"Drug dealers pleased to inform customers of lower bitcoin prices to increase sales"
We won the Lottery! ... Why are you excited? *WE* won the lottery. You didn't.
No point to that. I just would like to see more conversations with children misunderstanding some seemingly basic concepts in dialogue form here.
Me: Your new magazine you got from your grandmother for your birthday came in the mail. Do you want to read it tonight for bedtime?
4yo: [Confused] Magazines aren't for reading.
Me: What are they for?
4yo: [Stated with an tone of obviousness] Magazines are for cutting.
[End scene]
I like the definition of life that basically says that anything that reproduces itself and evolves through natural selection is alive. That would include viruses, which would be the simplest form of life on earth.
How to kill one of the most popular programming languages in one easy step.
"Will the trends thats true for the embedded systems ever be true for things like workstation CPUs?"
It certainly will. Eventually. I know this because there is a limit to maximum possible processing power on a chip because we still have to make things out of atoms and molecules. That doesn't mean innovation will stop entirely. Not at all. Think of it like knives. Knives are literally the oldest human invention -actually being invented before modern humans evolved. Even still, despite being hundreds of thousands of years old, clever designer can still design a new better knives. New knives are being designed all the time, mostly for hyper-specialized tasks or knives with special materials or designs. But, ultimately, for 99.99999% of uses, basically any ol' normal high quality knife will do the job fine. Even for specialized skills. Processors will go the same way. Even high end processors. Engineers can rearrange things endlessly, and build specific chips for super-specialized tasks, but eventually, for most every use for most person, CPU processors will become commodity products and become generic tools.
That and all of the above listed risks are correct.
But that was my point. The risks are too high to justify the work.
"and in other scenario they stole all the tech and compete with West, only without having to pay amortization for the cost of innovation."
The third, and most likely, scenario is that -over the next few generations- innovation in chip design becomes a diminishing investment, the patents expire, and microchips become commodities just like every other industry.
Consider this: today there are not very many significant paper plate patents filed. Paper plates, while once innovative, are a commodity product. If you want, you could start your own paper plate business and try to sell your plates. But basically the only thing you would have to sell on is your brand, your product is going to be basically the same as everyone else's. It's a paper plate. Micro chips are, eventually, going to go the same way. The patents will expire and anyone who wants to make and sell microchips will be able to do so.
It's inevitable. It's just a matter of time.
You mean putting an always on, always connected streaming camera in your home is a privacy and security issue?
I just can't believe that.
This is capitalism's Achilles Heel. Businesses are run on short term thinking. Sure your trade secrets are going to get stolen and they are going to use your tech to kick you out of there market in two years, but don't you want to do business in China today? Selling in the Chinese market will increase your stock price next quarter.
Nevertheless, in the long term (multigenerational term), it doesn't matter, they are going to figure it out for themselves one way or the other anyway.
All of that is true if you look at the country as a whole. But if you break the country out into classes a different story unfolds. Upper and upper-middle incomes have greatly improved. Healthcare is pretty in America great for those with upper-middle class jobs. Housing selection across the country is great for those with upper-middle incomes.
The story is very different for those on the lower end of the spectrum, but those people aren't the ones in positions to start-up new companies, which is the point of the original post.
But this has limited predictability. For example, how many new advertising consulting businesses are there each year. Of course there are lots, but I bet you would find that the rate of ad agency start-up has similarly decreased significantly over the decades. Can't really blame OSHA or the EPA for that.
Honestly I think it's mostly that being a middle-class employee is generally becoming a better trade for the employee. If you have a salaried position (guaranteed reliable and regular pay), have general health benefits, and an IRA or 401K, why would you throw that away just to work harder and be responsible for entire company?
Being a lower-class employee is getting worse, but those people are less likely to have the ability to raise the funds necessary to start their own companies.
You know there are other sectors of the global economy besides tech, right?
Start up risk is huge. That's the problem. It's massive. Sure there are some people that are successful and the risk pays dividends, but success is actually pretty rare. Most rational people look at the risk of starting your own company and shrug it off because simply being an employee is typically not that bad of a deal. In fact, it's really a pretty good deal. Your risk is greatly limited. Most people are perfectly ok with that.