| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| The Dream of Computing for Everyone |
| By Howard Fosdick on 2012-08-27 13:53:48 |
| The dream of inexpensive computing for everyone has been with us since
the first computers. Along the way it has taken some unexpected turns.
This article summarizes key trends and a few of the surprises. |
|
| RE: Comment by MrWeeble |
| By ilovebeer on 2012-08-28 16:40:15 |
|
> > Given that Raspberry targets consumers, I'd recommend consumer packaging. Add a case. Offer a bundle that includes the required cables, charger, mouse, keyboard, etc. Consumers want plug and go, not a naked circuit board. Actually the foundation doesn't target consumers, the initial version that is on sale is a developer board; they wanted to release it so that people could write software for it. The fact it is so hugely successful amongst non-developers was pretty surprising to them. There's very little difference between what you call the developer board (which is really called the model B board), and the coming "educational" model A board. What you get today is nearly the same as what you will get in the coming months with the official release -- assuming of course it comes out any time soon. > The actual target market is schools, and the release to them will include a bare-bones case. What I find funny is how much they've gone out of their way to demonstrate the Raspberry Pi's ability to perform as a media playback device, and play 3D games. Btw, they're now offering the hardware mpeg2 codec for purchase, priced at just a few bucks. Great news for people wanting to playback those avi's they downloaded. |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Comment by MrWeeble |
| By MrWeeble on 2012-08-28 18:44:28 |
|
Absolutely, very little difference indeed (after all what would be the point in having it be substantially different). Other than the case, The educational release of the model-A will also come with educational materials for use in the classroom. They very much did originally intend it to be used for educational/development purposes, which was their reasoning for not including the MPEG-2 licenses out of the box. While they are providing this as an add-on, I don't think they will be going for all-out consumer focussed any time soon |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[3]: Everything can be a computer |
| By hhas on 2012-08-28 20:01:26 |
|
I said I can see Apple doing it; reinventing entire markets to suit itself is something they've gotten rather good at. I didn't say it was desirable for the rest of the industry to sit on their behinds while Apple eats all their lunches. :) Of course I'd like to see open protocols for everything, so users can choose the devices from the vendors they want. The internet itself is the greatest example of open interop, and it didn't get that way by vendors playing silly buggers over closed standards. A rising tide lifts all boats. OTOH, individual vendors like Apple and Google will no doubt be looking to tilt the field in their own favour if they can, because that's just business. Alas, my cheap-ass crystal ball only shows where personal computing will eventually be at, not the exact route it'll take to get there or the precise form it'll take when it does. I suspect much will ride on other vendors not just waiting for Apple or Google to tell them what to copy... |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Smartphones are not new. |
| By Bobthearch on 2012-08-28 20:14:56 |
|
For may years now even basic phones have played media files, browsed the internet, taken pictures, and run "apps". The move from dedicated PDAs and phones towards single units was not "revolutionary" but rather a gradual process that began in the early 1990s, many years before ~either~ Apple or Samsung were making smartphones. My point, the line between PDAs, basic phones, smartphones, and other devices has always been thin and gray. |
| - Score: 3 |
| Do not forget the Arduino board! |
| By 108adams on 2012-08-28 20:18:54 |
| Just look at the specs of just released (or to be released soon) DUO (though UNO and LEONARDO are interesting as well) |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Invisibility is the goal |
| By Tony Swash on 2012-08-28 22:44:10 |
|
> Disappearing from view is a good thing for the masses who just want things to work and don't want to bother learning how to operate something, let alone read a manual. BUT! I think there should always be the option to thinker around. I don't mind an iPad being a closed system, but it would be a sad day if you were no longer able to build your own computer and install an alternative OS on it. When things start to become simple and people expect things to "just work" it's not such a small jump to a situation where a government forbids any computer devices where users can "tamper" with, for they may interrupt services of the it-just-works-machines/syst ems/services. The movie and music industry wouldn't mind that happening for it makes pirating less easy, nor would the government mind in their fight against terrorists, hackers and tax evaders. I would pose it this way: if you are designing a tool should you design it for the 1% who are interested in the tools themselves or for the 99% who just want to use a tool to do something else and not because they are interested in the tools themselves? Neither group, those interested in the tools themselves and those only interested in the thing the tools allows one to do, are right or wrong. The tool lovers will always be a small minority. Any company making tools will probably focus on the much larger group, those who only want tools for doing something else rather than for tinkering with the tools themselves. A company who makes tools so well designed and easy to use that they become invisible will probably be very successful but the design approach that created the invisibility of the tool will probably be based upon a design approach that makes tinkering with the tool harder and make the tool less satisfying for the small number of people who are mostly interested in the tool itself. There are no rights and wrongs in tool design. Just trade offs. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[3]: Comment by MrWeeble |
| By ilovebeer on 2012-08-29 01:53:32 |
|
> They very much did originally intend it to be used for educational/development purposes, which was their reasoning for not including the MPEG-2 licenses out of the box. Not sure where you heard that but it's not true. According to the foundation themselves, the only reason the mpeg2 license wasn't included was because they couldn't do so and maintain the $35 price. > While they are providing this as an add-on, I don't think they will be going for all-out consumer focussed any time soon They've been clear that providing people with a cheap & usable computer is one of their primary goals. So is staying in business (yes, even non-profits are businesses) and for that reason alone they understand the importance of accommodating common use needs. This is exactly why the mpeg2 and vc1 licenses are now available for purchase. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: Invisibility is the goal |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-08-29 06:50:56 |
|
The world is becoming more and more dependent on computers and Internet. When something doesn't work, like a government website, Amazon or 4G, more and more people will get annoyed. The more people that are annoyed the easier it will become for governments to "protect" these people from annoyance. They will attack the causes of system interruption. Hackers, unpatched PCs that are part of a bot net, overly creative IT students, computer users that pressed the wrong button. What if they forbid the use of computers that can be "tempered" with? This may sound a bit Big Brother and sci-fi, but I don't think it's that far fetched considering the movement towards IT dependence. Any government would love to be able to control the entire network, from the servers to the computers at home. People kill millions of sharks each year, a shark grabs a surfer and there is talk of killing them all off so people can safely surf. It doesn't take much for a crowd to support extreme ideas. 99% of the people would be fine with it, but 1% still account for the entire Linux community and they have over 5.000 Linux distributions. So 1% is still a market. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[3]: Comment by kovacm |
| By kovacm on 2012-08-29 09:12:40 |
|
> Even worse transgression: no mention of the Commodore 64... that was my first though also :) but I did not wan't to spoil article. yes, author should definitely read: "THE HOME COMPUTER WARS" by Michael S. Tomczyk ;) or, at least, could watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s... :) Edited 2012-08-29 09:13 UTC |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Invisibility is the goal |
| By zima on 2012-08-29 09:33:10 |
|
> BUT! I think there should always be the option to thinker around [...] but it would be a sad day if you were no longer able to build your own computer and install an alternative OS on it. What do you call "build your own computer"? :P http://members.iinet.net.au/~dav... |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |