Typing on a keyboard is not how hands, arms, or shoulders rest. A keyboard replacement will decouple my hands so that they can be at rest, which is at my sides. And yes, we need feedback, but tactile feedback is not necessary. My new smartphone uses audible feedback, which has worked very well.
The first people I know that had iPads were businessmen. Reading and typing emails and basic shared documents is definitely easier than using a non-portable pc, since most businessmen are in meetings, not sitting at their desk. I'm not quite sure why the base line is that tablets are "just a toy". As if toys are inferior, or that every computing improvement begins life as a toy.
Most people are not doing real work on computers. Most people let computers and the few of us that run them do that kind of work. For most people, computers provide information, entertainment, and communication. Order will vary.
I'm very certain that will be the way of things eventually. Once bluetooth (or replacement) is reliable and fast enough, and small form-factor computing is powerful enough, we'll decouple I/O hardware from the computing hardware. Granted, this is all about the consumer computing market, which I and many others on Slashdot are in different computing demographics. I'll have a full workstation at home as long as I have real computing needs, but computing needs for most people are currently flatlining.
So as I see the future, the standard tech consumer will have:
portable computing device, probably stored in a wallet/purse
bluetooth handset and/or headset for verbal communication
portable screen connecting over bluetooth (or whatever wireless format enables this)
larger screen at home (TV?) that either connects wirelessly or allows the computing device to dock
other bluetooth I/O devices:
keyboard/keyboard replacement (decouple my hands from the same device dammit!)
sensors that will replace mice (kinect-like functionality)
sensors for monitoring things (the post-tablet "killer apps")
There are a lot of suckers on Slashdot. That they can't see a childish rant even if it's well written is testament.
The Google I was passionate about was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovate. The Google I left was an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus.
That is called a straw-man. He even calls it out in the next sentence. Yet so many readers follow his logic without noticing that he had his head in the clouds and when reality came knocking, it knocked him right out. Companies change strategy, something that mature individuals accomodate. Maybe it's not a good change, maybe it's not a good fit, certainly there are plenty of reasons to disagree and find new employment. But suggesting it's the company's fault for not fitting the image that this guy wants while ignoring the business needs? Text-book definition of immature.
Your misunderstanding is that Google has been profit focused at least since they went public. Innovation is not profit and Google is now starting to see a lot of wasted innovation hurting them. That they are cutting innovation to focus on what they're good at? That's called smart business.
Methinks you have no idea how large corporations function. For starts, R&D cannot drive a company. Without obtuse patent law or a very understanding angel investor, there's no long-term strategy in R&D.
Two smart, ambitious guys in a garage can only innovate when there's low hanging fruit that corporations can't figure out how to grasp. The low hanging fruit is mostly gone until we have new tech to capitalize. Green energy is moving much slower than demand, so don't expect anything from guys in garages there. Maybe bio-engineering, but I imagine pharma-laws will slow us down there. The only hope I have is in a food revolution, but currently that's mostly about taste and not about fixing supply chains.
I can give you scenarios, but they all involve the unemployed becoming self-motivated and performing a lot of hard work for little short-term gain. Sadly neither quality is cultivated in the American middle class, so we're probably hosed.
That is still a thing. I believe Microsoft continues to submit more papers to SIGGRAPH than any other organization. It's very far removed from our OS and Office experience though. I imagine it's more about patent protection and outside licensing.
I suspect the latter. Rage quitting a tech job is unfortunately more common than it should be. Returning to Microsoft implies that he fits into a certain corporate culture, and from my small amount of anecdotal data, the two are quite different.
FYI: The sooner everybody stops treating corporations as singular entities, the sooner we all have rational conversations. 'IamTheRealMike' probably completely agrees with you and is on your side. Alienating him hurts your efforts. All that screaming in your post just hurts my head too.
Naw, probably a hedge fund manager. Stable, profitable tech giants are gold right now, and I'm sure many would prefer Google sock away cash like Apple.
Here I must disagree. We can laud Google for their R&D all day, but it is fracturing the company. If they start facing stronger competition in their core markets, they will be at a disadvantage. Large companies do not react well due to competing interests. Likely Google would double down on search and advertising, cutting funds and alienating R&D. Likely they will become the new IBM, doing R&D, but much more focused on their core business, which they may not continue dominating. This is the circle of business.
Preference implies choice. I would have to raise a big stink at city meetings to change the eery glow outside my window from all the lights at the Light Rail. I have shades and shut them, but it would be so great if a soft white or blue were coming in rather than that eery yellow glow that has no business happening at nighttime.
Not true. Using your absolutist terms: I always save up to purchase the higher quality product. No need to worry about inflation either as I have a savings account and I make more money every 2 weeks!
Slashdot Mirror
I can't pick up my desktop and use it on the train to work. Decoupling isn't just for code.
Typing on a keyboard is not how hands, arms, or shoulders rest. A keyboard replacement will decouple my hands so that they can be at rest, which is at my sides. And yes, we need feedback, but tactile feedback is not necessary. My new smartphone uses audible feedback, which has worked very well.
The first people I know that had iPads were businessmen. Reading and typing emails and basic shared documents is definitely easier than using a non-portable pc, since most businessmen are in meetings, not sitting at their desk. I'm not quite sure why the base line is that tablets are "just a toy". As if toys are inferior, or that every computing improvement begins life as a toy.
Most people are not doing real work on computers. Most people let computers and the few of us that run them do that kind of work. For most people, computers provide information, entertainment, and communication. Order will vary.
So as I see the future, the standard tech consumer will have:
Read in between the lines. The GP is more correct than not. James Whittaker is just bitching that the Google he wants is not the real Google.
You are correct. Which is why this guy's story is not terribly interesting. Give me 100 of these rants, and then we can care.
The Google I was passionate about was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovate. The Google I left was an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus.
That is called a straw-man. He even calls it out in the next sentence. Yet so many readers follow his logic without noticing that he had his head in the clouds and when reality came knocking, it knocked him right out. Companies change strategy, something that mature individuals accomodate. Maybe it's not a good change, maybe it's not a good fit, certainly there are plenty of reasons to disagree and find new employment. But suggesting it's the company's fault for not fitting the image that this guy wants while ignoring the business needs? Text-book definition of immature.
Your misunderstanding is that Google has been profit focused at least since they went public. Innovation is not profit and Google is now starting to see a lot of wasted innovation hurting them. That they are cutting innovation to focus on what they're good at? That's called smart business.
Methinks you have no idea how large corporations function. For starts, R&D cannot drive a company. Without obtuse patent law or a very understanding angel investor, there's no long-term strategy in R&D.
Two smart, ambitious guys in a garage can only innovate when there's low hanging fruit that corporations can't figure out how to grasp. The low hanging fruit is mostly gone until we have new tech to capitalize. Green energy is moving much slower than demand, so don't expect anything from guys in garages there. Maybe bio-engineering, but I imagine pharma-laws will slow us down there. The only hope I have is in a food revolution, but currently that's mostly about taste and not about fixing supply chains.
I can give you scenarios, but they all involve the unemployed becoming self-motivated and performing a lot of hard work for little short-term gain. Sadly neither quality is cultivated in the American middle class, so we're probably hosed.
That is still a thing. I believe Microsoft continues to submit more papers to SIGGRAPH than any other organization. It's very far removed from our OS and Office experience though. I imagine it's more about patent protection and outside licensing.
I suspect the latter. Rage quitting a tech job is unfortunately more common than it should be. Returning to Microsoft implies that he fits into a certain corporate culture, and from my small amount of anecdotal data, the two are quite different.
Ugh, I need to reset my filters after mod points. Otherwise my eyes are abused by posts like these.
FYI: The sooner everybody stops treating corporations as singular entities, the sooner we all have rational conversations. 'IamTheRealMike' probably completely agrees with you and is on your side. Alienating him hurts your efforts. All that screaming in your post just hurts my head too.
Speculators aren't a problem when investors make smart choices.
Naw, probably a hedge fund manager. Stable, profitable tech giants are gold right now, and I'm sure many would prefer Google sock away cash like Apple.
Here I must disagree. We can laud Google for their R&D all day, but it is fracturing the company. If they start facing stronger competition in their core markets, they will be at a disadvantage. Large companies do not react well due to competing interests. Likely Google would double down on search and advertising, cutting funds and alienating R&D. Likely they will become the new IBM, doing R&D, but much more focused on their core business, which they may not continue dominating. This is the circle of business.
Preference implies choice. I would have to raise a big stink at city meetings to change the eery glow outside my window from all the lights at the Light Rail. I have shades and shut them, but it would be so great if a soft white or blue were coming in rather than that eery yellow glow that has no business happening at nighttime.
How scientific of you.
Why is the small, portable heater a bigger problem than the small, immovable incandescent bulb?
I prefer the LED lights because now my municipality can actually spend some money on real cops instead of high school drop-outs with ego problems.
Electricity from mega-dams is clearly _cold_ electricity, useless for heating.
Not true. Using your absolutist terms: I always save up to purchase the higher quality product. No need to worry about inflation either as I have a savings account and I make more money every 2 weeks!