I don't care. Nobody in my family cares. None of my friends care. Even the gamers I know don't really care about more pixels. We, all of us, use computers all of the time, on our phones, our PCs, watches, glasses, tablets, readouts everywhere we go . . . computing is damned near ubiquitous. We're a hop, skip, and a jump from Blade Runner already.
Further, I don't understand how higher graphics density or bigger displays are "lack of innovation" in the PC market. That's a wonderful non sequitur that leads to argument (as seen in reaction to your comment) but it's still a non sequitur.
Microsoft used to be driven by the goal of a computer in every home and on every desk in every office. That was crazy at the time. That was also an amazing clarion call that all of us 'softies (I was one back in the day) could get behind. And Microsoft, evil as it can sometimes be, was willing to drag everyone else along into that glorious future.
Mission accomplished. (Applause is appreciated here but not expected.)
Now they're flailing a bit. Both Microsoft and the PC makers. And it has nothing to do with graphics. Not really. It has to do with not finding a new niche to fill to make the way humans experience the world better. More pixels is not better for most of us. And just to restate: let's make the world better for humans.
Once upon a time spreadsheets were a killer app. Everyone who wants to use a spreadsheet probably has a machine that can do that now. Then there was the Internet . . . again, probably everyone's happy enough now. What's the next killer use for a PC? That remains to be seen. That's the point of the article. And if there were such an easy answer as "we need better graphics" I'm reasonably sure that tech journalists, naive as you might think they all are, would all rejoice because they'd all already be busy explaining that to all of us in the kind of detail that corporate sponsors' ads would happily show us. That makes them money, sells copy, and gives them a warm feeling as they drift off to sleep at night. Wonderful!
If you really want to kvetch about how someone's missing the boat, please point your finger at everyone here (including the two of us) and ask us all what matters to most people and what we're doing about it. I don't mean "cult of the new" crap that the echo chamber talks about most of the time on HN. I mean "something that substantially changes the lives of a large body of non-techy people". Consider health, travel, money management, alerting, data backup, data protection, et al. I see very geek-specific examples here on HN but I've yet to see many examples that are universally useful for regular people. I have seen none that I'd recommend to my parents without expecting them to need hand-holding.
In the mid-90s there were lots of people buying PCs running Windows to play games and run spreadsheets and be online and write papers and find porn and . . . you name it. There were needs. There aren't now. They're satisfied.
And that is why the PC and Microsoft are stalled. And that is why most startups (or non-startups) don't matter. And that is what you should think about as you fire up your next plan to be king of the world. People, not pixels. What do they need?
Further, I don't understand how higher graphics density or bigger displays are "lack of innovation" in the PC market. That's a wonderful non sequitur that leads to argument (as seen in reaction to your comment) but it's still a non sequitur.
Microsoft used to be driven by the goal of a computer in every home and on every desk in every office. That was crazy at the time. That was also an amazing clarion call that all of us 'softies (I was one back in the day) could get behind. And Microsoft, evil as it can sometimes be, was willing to drag everyone else along into that glorious future.
Mission accomplished. (Applause is appreciated here but not expected.)
Now they're flailing a bit. Both Microsoft and the PC makers. And it has nothing to do with graphics. Not really. It has to do with not finding a new niche to fill to make the way humans experience the world better. More pixels is not better for most of us. And just to restate: let's make the world better for humans.
Once upon a time spreadsheets were a killer app. Everyone who wants to use a spreadsheet probably has a machine that can do that now. Then there was the Internet . . . again, probably everyone's happy enough now. What's the next killer use for a PC? That remains to be seen. That's the point of the article. And if there were such an easy answer as "we need better graphics" I'm reasonably sure that tech journalists, naive as you might think they all are, would all rejoice because they'd all already be busy explaining that to all of us in the kind of detail that corporate sponsors' ads would happily show us. That makes them money, sells copy, and gives them a warm feeling as they drift off to sleep at night. Wonderful!
If you really want to kvetch about how someone's missing the boat, please point your finger at everyone here (including the two of us) and ask us all what matters to most people and what we're doing about it. I don't mean "cult of the new" crap that the echo chamber talks about most of the time on HN. I mean "something that substantially changes the lives of a large body of non-techy people". Consider health, travel, money management, alerting, data backup, data protection, et al. I see very geek-specific examples here on HN but I've yet to see many examples that are universally useful for regular people. I have seen none that I'd recommend to my parents without expecting them to need hand-holding.
In the mid-90s there were lots of people buying PCs running Windows to play games and run spreadsheets and be online and write papers and find porn and . . . you name it. There were needs. There aren't now. They're satisfied.
And that is why the PC and Microsoft are stalled. And that is why most startups (or non-startups) don't matter. And that is what you should think about as you fire up your next plan to be king of the world. People, not pixels. What do they need?