On Sunday, 16 September 2018 at 04:47:11 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 September 2018 at 01:03:27 UTC, Dave Jones wrote:
>>> I know a lot of people who did, which explains the 28% drop in PC sales since they peaked in 2011, the year after the iPad came out. Many of those people who used to buy PCs have switched to tablets and other mobile devices.
>>
>> Yet PC sales are up this year, mobile is down, and tablet sales have fallen for 3 years in a row.
>
> Eh, these are all mostly mature markets now, so slight quarterly dips or gains don't matter much anymore. What does it matter that PC sales were up 2-3% last quarter when 7 times as many smartphones and mobile devices were sold in that same quarter?

Some analysts have predicted that PC sales will plateau at some point and if that's where we're at now then 30% drop in shipments is not death of the market.


> I say that almost 30% drop in PC sales over the last 7 years is mostly due to the rise of mobile.

I think a large part of it is that PCs got fast enough for most people about 7-10 years ago. So it was a combination of mobile, and people no longer needing to get newer faster machines. The upgrade cycle moved from "I need a newer faster computer" to "I'll wait till my current system is worn out". (For a lot of people anyway)


>> And just because there's been a trend for 5 or 6 years doesnt mean it will continue so inevitably.
>
> Sure, but these trends almost never reverse. ;)

It doesnt need to reverse for "the PC is dead" to be false.


>> I actually think most people would prefer a separate desktop and mobile device, whether that desktop is just the size of pack of cigarettes, or a big box with 5 fans in it.
>
> Why? Given how price-sensitive the vast majority of the computing-buying public is- that excludes the Apple sheeple who actually seem to get a hard-on from rising iPhone prices, all the better for them to show how much money they've lucked into by brandishing their "gold" iPhone ;) - I don't see most willing to spend twice on two devices, that could be replaced by just one. Until recently, they didn't have a choice, as you couldn't use your mobile device as a desktop, but the just-released devices I linked in the first post in this thread are starting to change that.

Because for about £300 you can get an intel NUC system with 120GB SSD, which is more powerful and more upgradeable than your £700 mobile device. And some people still want that. And because most people have more than one TV, some have multiple phones, phones and tablets, and desktops, and multiple games consoles. And they still use them all in different situations.

This "one device" thing is your preference and you're projecting it onto everyone else.


>> Yes you can bring up examples of people who made mistakes predicting the future but that works both ways. You're just as guilty of seeing a two points and drawing a straight line though them.
>
> Except none of these examples or my own prediction are based on simple extrapolation between data points. Rather, we're analyzing the underlying technical details and capabilities and coming to different conclusions about whether the status quo is likely to remain. So I don't think any of us are "guilty" of your charge.

Of course you are, you're making predictions and assuming the trends will continue, you assume the technical details are all important. Im saying they are only part of it, that people have requirements / preferences outside of how powerful the device is. Lots of people were predicting ebooks would kill the real book market a few years back, turns out people still prefer to have an actual paper book to read, ebooks peaked a few years ago and real books have been in growth ever since. That was people seeing a trend and assuming it would continue just like you are.

On Sunday, 16 September 2018 at 10:25:30 UTC, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 September 2018 at 04:47:11 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> On Sunday, 16 September 2018 at 01:03:27 UTC, Dave Jones wrote:
>>>> I know a lot of people who did, which explains the 28% drop in PC sales since they peaked in 2011, the year after the iPad came out. Many of those people who used to buy PCs have switched to tablets and other mobile devices.
>>>
>>> Yet PC sales are up this year, mobile is down, and tablet sales have fallen for 3 years in a row.
>>
>> Eh, these are all mostly mature markets now, so slight quarterly dips or gains don't matter much anymore. What does it matter that PC sales were up 2-3% last quarter when 7 times as many smartphones and mobile devices were sold in that same quarter?
>
> Some analysts have predicted that PC sales will plateau at some point and if that's where we're at now then 30% drop in shipments is not death of the market.

I see no reason why they would plateau, looks like wishful thinking to me.

>> I say that almost 30% drop in PC sales over the last 7 years is mostly due to the rise of mobile.
>
> I think a large part of it is that PCs got fast enough for most people about 7-10 years ago. So it was a combination of mobile, and people no longer needing to get newer faster machines. The upgrade cycle moved from "I need a newer faster computer" to "I'll wait till my current system is worn out". (For a lot of people anyway)

Sure, that's part of it, but that suggests that once smartphones reach that performance threshold, they will replace PCs altogether. I think we've reached that threshold now.

>>> And just because there's been a trend for 5 or 6 years doesnt mean it will continue so inevitably.
>>
>> Sure, but these trends almost never reverse. ;)
>
> It doesnt need to reverse for "the PC is dead" to be false.

Plateaus almost never happen, it's not the natural order of things.

For example, newspapers hoped their ad revenue had plateaued from 2000-2005, then they plunged:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Naa_newspaper_ad_revenue.svg

I've predicted that a similar plunge is about to happen to PC sales.

>>> I actually think most people would prefer a separate desktop and mobile device, whether that desktop is just the size of pack of cigarettes, or a big box with 5 fans in it.
>>
>> Why? Given how price-sensitive the vast majority of the computing-buying public is- that excludes the Apple sheeple who actually seem to get a hard-on from rising iPhone prices, all the better for them to show how much money they've lucked into by brandishing their "gold" iPhone ;) - I don't see most willing to spend twice on two devices, that could be replaced by just one. Until recently, they didn't have a choice, as you couldn't use your mobile device as a desktop, but the just-released devices I linked in the first post in this thread are starting to change that.
>
> Because for about £300 you can get an intel NUC system with 120GB SSD, which is more powerful and more upgradeable than your £700 mobile device. And some people still want that. And because most people have more than one TV, some have multiple phones, phones and tablets, and desktops, and multiple games consoles. And they still use them all in different situations.

That's more on the high end, where people use many devices. On the low- to mid-end of the market, where most of the sales happen, people are happy to buy fewer devices that get the job done.

> This "one device" thing is your preference and you're projecting it onto everyone else.

Looks to me like you're the one projecting here. People used to buy standalone mp3 players, GPS devices, point-and-shoot cameras, handheld gaming consoles, etc., etc. Sales of all those standalone devices have been devastated by the smartphone; here's just one example of what happened to camera sales after the smartphone took over, which I've linked on this forum before:

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/latest-camera-sales-chart-reveals-death-compact-camera/

I find it strange that you think the PC won't also be rolled up by mobile like this.

>>> Yes you can bring up examples of people who made mistakes predicting the future but that works both ways. You're just as guilty of seeing a two points and drawing a straight line though them.
>>
>> Except none of these examples or my own prediction are based on simple extrapolation between data points. Rather, we're analyzing the underlying technical details and capabilities and coming to different conclusions about whether the status quo is likely to remain. So I don't think any of us are "guilty" of your charge.
>
> Of course you are, you're making predictions and assuming the trends will continue, you assume the technical details are all important. Im saying they are only part of it, that people have requirements / preferences outside of how powerful the device is. Lots of people were predicting ebooks would kill the real book market a few years back, turns out people still prefer to have an actual paper book to read, ebooks peaked a few years ago and real books have been in growth ever since. That was people seeing a trend and assuming it would continue just like you are.

No, print is pretty much dead, it's just hard to track because so many ebooks have gone indie now:

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/traditional-publishers-ebook-sales-drop-indie-authors-amazon-take-off/

What are these magical "requirements/preferences" that you cannot name, that you believe will keep print alive? That will be really funny. :)

On Sunday, 16 September 2018 at 15:11:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>> I say that almost 30% drop in PC sales over the last 7 years is mostly due to the rise of mobile.
>>
>> I think a large part of it is that PCs got fast enough for most people about 7-10 years ago. So it was a combination of mobile, and people no longer needing to get newer faster machines. The upgrade cycle moved from "I need a newer faster computer" to "I'll wait till my current system is worn out". (For a lot of people anyway)
>
> Sure, that's part of it, but that suggests that once smartphones reach that performance threshold, they will replace PCs altogether. I think we've reached that threshold now.

I feel only looking at sales stats is irrelevant. I know people that have lost their phone and just bought a new phone. They get stolen a lot more easily. If your screen breaks you are better off buying a new phone as the cost of replacing the screen is going to be almost as much as a new one. Someone I know had to fight his boss to repair his phone cause he didn't want a brand new iPhone, he still has an Android device and they switched to Apple a while back. Note, it still costed more to buy the new phone than repair his old one.

Computers last much longer, I've had the one I have right now for 8 years. It runs everything I need it to. Faster than a smartphone or tablet, or even most newer laptops still. There's no reason to buy a new one, not that I would buy a prebuilt one anyways. Which I'm pretty sure are what those sales represent. Can't really count a CPU sale as a "PC" sale as it might just be someone upgrading from their old PC.

That is, it is not just the performance that affects the sales of phones. There's a lot of factors that lead to there being new phones sales. Know someone that's gone through 3 phones in comparison to just the one I have. Treadmills eat phones for breakfast.

On Sunday, 16 September 2018 at 10:25:30 UTC, Dave Jones wrote:
> Because for about £300 you can get an intel NUC system with 120GB SSD, which is more powerful and more upgradeable than your £700 mobile device. And some people still want that.

For the typical person, it's more likely that they'll get a laptop and replace the whole thing at once instead of upgrading. And a new rise of convergence devices would reduce laptop ownership.

Better network connectivity and cloud-based gaming would erode another segment of powerful personal computers. That could also impact things like content editing -- Adobe Creative Cloud might actually be entirely cloud-based eventually. Which is a mild improvement in that you wouldn't need a good computer to run Premiere Pro, but a large problem for actually being able to access your data and products you've purchased. It angers both the EFF and digital archivists.

Anyway, it's at least moderately plausible that, thirty years from now, desktop computers will be considered specialized gear.

On Sunday, 16 September 2018 at 15:56:25 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
> Better network connectivity and cloud-based gaming would erode another segment of powerful personal computers.

I wish companies actually cared for providing better networks. But the truth is they are fine charging for their overpriced internet packages as it stands. They don't get anything out of providing better internet for cheaper. The output of throughput you would need for something like 4k gaming or 144hz. I don't ever see (at least america's) internet structure supporting that in 30 years.

On 9/12/2018 11:38 AM, Joakim wrote:> On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 06:41:38 UTC, Gambler wrote:
>> On 9/10/2018 9:43 AM, Joakim wrote:
>>> Yes, I know, these devices won't replace your quad-core Xeon workstation with 32-64 GBs of RAM anytime soon, but most people don't need anywhere near that level of compute. That's why PC sales keep dropping while mobile sales are now 6-7X that per year:
>> I'm all for supporting modern open CPU architectures. At the same time, I fear that the specific trend you're describing here (people ditching PCs for cellphones/tablets) is effectively a reversal of the PC revolution.
>>
>> For the last 30+ years people benefited from "trickle down computing". They had access to PCs that were equivalent to cutting edge servers of 6-7 years prior. They had ability to choose their operating system, expand and upgrade their hardware and install any software they wanted.
>>
>> All of this is breaking down right now.
>
> Yes and no, it is true that that is the way tech  _used_ to diffuse. However, do you know what the largest tech company in the world is right now? It's not IBM, Apple, HP, or Microsoft, ie none of the server or PC companies. It's Apple, which doesn't sell into the server or traditional enterprise markets almost at all and only has 15-20% unit share in the mobile market.
>
> In other words, consumer tech markets are _much_ larger than the server/enterprise markets that used to lead tech R&D, which means consumer tech like mobile is what leads the way now.
>
> As for choosing your own OS, that's still possible, but as always, it can be tough to get drivers for your hardware:
>
>
https://together.jolla.com/question/136143/wiki-available-devices-running-sailfish-os/
>
>
> And if you simply want to tinker with the Android OS on your device, there are many ways to do that:
>
> https://www.xda-developers.com/how-to-install-custom-rom-android/
>
> No need to expand and upgrade your hardware when prices keep dropping in this Darwinian market. There's now a $500 phone with a faster chip than the one I got just 7 months back for $700:
>
> https://m.newegg.com/products/N82E16875220078
>
> As for installing any software you want, Android allows it: it's how I debug the apps I build on my phone or tablet. The iPhone doesn't, but it's a minority of the mobile market.
>
>> Intel got lazy without competition and high-end CPU architectures stagnated. All the cutting-edge computing is done on NVidia cards today. It requires hundreds of gigabytes of RAM, tens of terabytes of data and usage of specialized computing libraries. I very much doubt this will "trickle down" to mobile in foreseeable future. Heck, most developer laptops today have no CUDA capabilities to speak of.
>
> I question the need for such "cutting-edge computing" in the first place, but regardless, it has already moved down to mobile and other edge devices:
>
>
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/10/the-pixel-2-contains-a-custom-google-soc-the-pixel-visual-core/
>
>
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/26/17616140/google-edge-tpu-on-device-ai-machine-learning-devkit
>
>
>> Moreover, mobile devices are locked down by default and it's no trivial task to break out of those walled gardens. IIRC, Apple has an official policy of not allowing programming tools in their app store. Alan Kay had to personally petition Steve Jobs to allow Scratch to be distributed, so kids could learn programming. I believe the general policy is still in place.
>
> They have their own app for that now:
>
> https://www.apple.com/swift/playgrounds/
>
>> Android is better, but it's still a horror to do real work on, compared to any PC OS. Fine, you rooted it, installed some compilers and so on. How will you share your software with fellow Android users?
>
> You seem to have missed all the posts I've made here before about native Android support for ldc: :) _I have never rooted any of my Android devices_. Compiling D code on most any Android device is as simple as installing an app from the official Play Store and typing a single command, `apt install ldc`:
>
> https://wiki.dlang.org/Build_D_for_Android
>
> The instructions there even show you how to package up an Android GUI app, an apk, on Android itself, by using some other packages available in that Android app.
>
>> In essence, we are seeing the rapid widening of two digital divides. The first one is between users and average developers. The second one is between average developers and researchers at companies like Google. I very much doubt that we will see an equivalent of today's high-end machine learning server on user's desk, let alone in anyone's pocket, within 7 years.
>
> I disagree on both counts. First off, people were running supercomputers and UNIX workstations while you were piddling along on your PC decades ago. That changed nothing about what you were able to learn and accomplish on your PC. In fact, you were probably much better off than they were, as the PC skills you picked up were likely in much more demand than their supercomputing abilities. ;)
>
> It's similar today. Billions of people can now access programming through that open-source Termux app that can be installed on almost any Android device. That's _HUGE_ for the user, and D is one of only about 15 programming languages currently available in that app, and one of only 5 that eventually compile down to native assembly, alongside Vala, Go, C, and C++.
>
> As for machine learning researchers and the like, I think that's way overhyped, as this guy says:
>
> https://blog.piekniewski.info/2018/05/28/ai-winter-is-well-on-its-way/
>
> I'm confident that the app market will continue being much larger than the cloud/research market you're concerned about, though both are due for a shakeout.
>
>> My only hope is that newer AMD processors and popularity of VR rigs may help narrow these divides.
>
> I doubt either of those will matter at all anytime soon.
You're right about APKs. Not sure whether it changed since I looked into it, or I didn't read the docs correctly in the first place. The overall dev/distribution process, though, still looks... uh, involved compared to compiling and running an executable on PC.

In general, I am still convinced of the overall negative effect of mobile devices on computing. They are designed to be used mostly for consumption and social sharing. They have a lot of limitations that currently drag the whole IT ecosystem down.

Some excellent high-level criticisms:

https://www.fastcompany.com/40435064/what-alan-kay-thinks-about-the-iphone-and-technology-now

http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/

Specific Example #1:
Web design had been devastated by touchscreens. Instead of figuring out
how to create more powerful interfaces designers spend their mental
capacity on how to cram information onto tiny screens of unknown
orientation. The vocabulary of reliably available user interactions has
shrunk to actions people can do with a single thumb. Worst of all, this
is spreading to desktop apps. I've seen in this in my day-to-day job.

Specific Example #2:
People brought up on mobile devices do not know how to type on a keyboard:
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201803290068.html
This is not limited to Japan. Again, I've seen this in real life.

Do you think that someone who can't type on a keyboard will be
able to use _Unix terminal emulation_ to create software? Termux is a
cool project, but it doesn't target "billions of people". It targets a
handful of experienced Linux users who want to fiddle with Android.

And yes, we do need computing power for new things. I agree with that article on machine learning hype. But that doesn't change the fact that without all the video cards modern machine learning architectures would be impractical, whether or not you consider them particularly useful or good. Computing power was the enabler.

On Sunday, 16 September 2018 at 15:11:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 September 2018 at 10:25:30 UTC, Dave Jones wrote:
>
>> Some analysts have predicted that PC sales will plateau at some point and if that's where we're at now then 30% drop in shipments is not death of the market.
>
> I see no reason why they would plateau, looks like wishful thinking to me.

Might be, but so is trying to convince everyone your predictions are correct so they will focus their work on the issues important to you.


>> I think a large part of it is that PCs got fast enough for most people about 7-10 years ago. So it was a combination of mobile, and people no longer needing to get newer faster machines. The upgrade cycle moved from "I need a newer faster computer" to "I'll wait till my current system is worn out". (For a lot of people anyway)
>
> Sure, that's part of it, but that suggests that once smartphones reach that performance threshold, they will replace PCs altogether. I think we've reached that threshold now.

If it was just about performance, but it's not.


>>>> And just because there's been a trend for 5 or 6 years doesnt mean it will continue so inevitably.
>>>
>>> Sure, but these trends almost never reverse. ;)
>>
>> It doesnt need to reverse for "the PC is dead" to be false.
>
> Plateaus almost never happen, it's not the natural order of things.

OK the market stabilises.


>> Because for about £300 you can get an intel NUC system with 120GB SSD, which is more powerful and more upgradeable than your £700 mobile device. And some people still want that. And because most people have more than one TV, some have multiple phones, phones and tablets, and desktops, and multiple games consoles. And they still use them all in different situations.
>
> That's more on the high end, where people use many devices. On the low- to mid-end of the market, where most of the sales happen, people are happy to buy fewer devices that get the job done.

Most households have more devices than ever before, and hardware is only getting cheaper. The idea that people will have to choose just one device is plainly wrong.


> I find it strange that you think the PC won't also be rolled up by mobile like this.

Can you put a 3GB hard drive in your phone? Or a high end graphics card? Or a soundcard with balanced outputs?


>>>> Yes you can bring up examples of people who made mistakes predicting the future but that works both ways. You're just as guilty of seeing a two points and drawing a straight line though them.
>>>
>>> Except none of these examples or my own prediction are based on simple extrapolation between data points. Rather, we're analyzing the underlying technical details and capabilities and coming to different conclusions about whether the status quo is likely to remain. So I don't think any of us are "guilty" of your charge.
>>
>> Of course you are, you're making predictions and assuming the trends will continue, you assume the technical details are all important. Im saying they are only part of it, that people have requirements / preferences outside of how powerful the device is. Lots of people were predicting ebooks would kill the real book market a few years back, turns out people still prefer to have an actual paper book to read, ebooks peaked a few years ago and real books have been in growth ever since. That was people seeing a trend and assuming it would continue just like you are.
>
> No, print is pretty much dead, it's just hard to track because so many ebooks have gone indie now:
>
> https://www.geekwire.com/2018/traditional-publishers-ebook-sales-drop-indie-authors-amazon-take-off/
>
> What are these magical "requirements/preferences" that you cannot name, that you believe will keep print alive? That will be really funny. :)

You obviously didn't research thoroughly enough, the site that was the source for the geekwire article shows quite clearly that print books still outsell ebooks almost twice over.

http://authorearnings.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Slide29.jpg

and yes that's with indie published books included.

Another interesting thing from that report was the average price of indie ebooks was $2.95

http://authorearnings.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Slide26.jpg

So even selling ebooks for peanuts cant catch them up.

On Saturday, 15 September 2018 at 15:25:55 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>
> You've probably heard of the possibly apocryphal story of how Blackberry and Nokia engineers disassembled the first iPhone and dismissed it because it only got a day of battery life, while their devices lasted much longer. They thought the mainstream market would care about such battery life as much as their early adopters, but they were wrong.
>
It they'd ask me they would have known. I was a very late adopter of mobile phone and got my first phone in 2000. It was the used Siemens E10D of my brother. It had maximum 1 day of battery life. Then I got at work an Alcatel then a Nokia with ludicrously long battery life, nearly 2 weeks. Result -> my Siemens was always charged properly and I was always reachable. With the others, they were always crapping out on me at the most inapropriate times. With the short battery life, you would never forget to put it on charge. With the long battery life, you would always wait till it's too late.

On 9/15/2018 11:25 AM, Joakim wrote:
> On Friday, 14 September 2018 at 09:23:24 UTC, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Thursday, 13 September 2018 at 22:56:31 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 13 September 2018 at 22:41:08 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
>>> (Abscissa) wrote:
>>>> On 09/10/2018 11:13 PM, tide wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 10 September 2018 at 13:43:46 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>>>>> That's why PC sales keep dropping while mobile sales are now 6-7X that per year:
>>>>>
>>>>> This shouldn't be misunderstood as such, which I think you as misunderstanding it. The reason mobile sales are so high is because of planned obsolescence and the walled garden that these devices are built around. I've gone through maybe 3-4 phones in the time that I've had my Desktop, and I use my desktop every single day. I don't need to buy a new one cause it runs perfectly fine, there aren't operating system updates that purposely cause the CPU to run slower to "save battery life" when a new device and OS come out. That's not to say it isn't insignificant but the sales numbers are exacerbated.
>>>>
>>>> Right. Basically, "sales stats" should never be misconstrued as "usage stats".
>>>
>>> The usage stats are similarly overwhelming, two-thirds of digital time is spent on mobile, more for the young:
>>
>> Yeah but 90% of the time people spend on mobile is just dicking about. Sending IMs, facebook, point and click games. And thats a huge part of the usage stats, people can now spend more time online wasting time in more situations than ever before.
>
> And people don't use PCs for such things? ;) I know a lot of people who did, which explains the 28% drop in PC sales since they peaked in 2011, the year after the iPad came out. Many of those people who used to buy PCs have switched to tablets and other mobile devices.
>
>> PCs are generally seen a tool to accomplish tasks, for word processing or a high end gaming thing, audio / video editing, mobile is more entertainment. Not many people are doing what you are by using your mobile as a desktop.
>>
>> I'm not saying that makes mobile worthless, what I'm saying is that your hypothesis is like saying TV has taken over from typewriters.
>
> More like when computers first started replacing typewriters, I'm sure many laughed at that possibility back then too. :)

Sure. Xerox production department sabotaged the initial release of Alto, because they were invested in "smart" typewriters. But I don't think this is a valid analogy.

Here is mine. PCs are like books, while tablets and phones are like TV. TV is a more modern medium, but it's highly centralized and strips the audience of control. A successful TV program usually reaches more people than a book, but television has much higher barrier of entry for creators. Moreover, while it is theoretically possible to learn something by watching TV, in practice it's oriented towards "news" and entertainment and _this matters_.

So should we celebrate dwindling books sales and multi-million ratings of some morning show simply because the show makes a lot of money? Should we encourage underdeveloped countries "skip" books and move "directly" to TV?