I see a connection between this and the troubles Intel is facing, and the general decline of CISC processors.
The decline of computers as a general-purpose technology
191–200 of 228 posts
Re: The decline of computers as a general-purpose technology
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With modern machines, even without the discouragement of locked down operating systems, missing accessible programming languages and such... there is just no hope of making something "cool" you can impress your friends with. Every modern computing machine I know allows you to add a very rich set of coding tools, other than unjailbroken mobile devices perhaps. Yeah, poor access to mobile sucks, but if you feel the n…
You are looking at this through the eyes of someone who is already comfortable with their understanding of computers and software. To a kid with no prior knowledge, the entry barriers might appear impossibly high.
No, they're lower than ever. They're one google search away from a huge amount of usable resources, youtube videos, web IDEs that they can use on their locked down iPad / School Chromebook and more.
Re: The decline of computers as a general-purpose technology
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I love the fact I don’t have to muck about with my iPhone to get it to work... Imagine being able to quickly and easily add your own custom programs to your iPhone without asking anyone's permission though? Also, what if - as the owner of that device - you had full control over it's capabilities like you do with a desktop computer? Adding these abilities certainly would not be the downfall of phone ecosystems as we…
Just as it’s not possible to provide “Lawful Access to Encryption” (master keys) without weakening crypto, it’s not possible to “quickly and easily add your own custom programs without asking permission” that _also_ provides the safety so your mom or grandfather don’t install something that allows crooks to drain their bank accounts. General purpose computers are great for people who know what they’re doing (although…
So, you're saying that there is absolutely now way, no how that we can put up a fence to keep people with low understanding of tech from compiling and installing some random app?
I don't buy it.
> I don’t think that that Windows 95-like “permissions” are what most people want or need.
That's an extremely bad faith take on my argument because there's a very wide spectrum of possibilities between the Windows 95 free-for-all and what we have with iOS. You're presenting a false dichotomy.
For one thing, iOS could easily put up tons of scary warnings before letting you sideload things. That would be enough to dissuade most people from doing it. However, I'd be willing to go to extremes to get control over the devices which I supposedly own. Make me come into the Apple store and sign away any rights to a warranty from Apple. Make me pay extra. Whatever you want - just don't put every single user in prison because a likely majority of people can't handle making good decisions on what software to install.
The idea that we must remove any and all control from users to protect the innocent is just as bad as the idea to have a War on Drugs - and I highly suspect that these preventions are actually in place for the same reason: to actually control people and rake in profits, not to protect them.
Re: The decline of computers as a general-purpose technology
#194This is a very hardware focused overview of technology. To summarise, Moore's Law is dead. Specialise processors takes over. And they will be owned by specific Companies.
That is all true as I have been posting pretty much exactly the same on HN for a few years. The real question is though, does it matter?
I am not convinced, at least not yet convinced what we are doing now on a computer is that much different to 20 years ago. Excel, Web Browsing, Media Consumption and Content Creation like Photoshop. The only real recent innovation is Machine Learning that greatly increase productivity in certain niche.
And it does not seems to me any of the above activity is going to fundamentally shift. There is nothing in terms of Hardware tech limitation that is holding up performance for further productivity increase, rather it is Software that is not getting much improvement if you consider the worst and best software could have performance different of 100x.
To give an example, I could bet with few billion dollar we could create a Hardware GPU that is 80% close to Nvidia GPU or AMD GPU. I am also willing to bet even with 10 Billion dollar funding we cant get a CUDA Compatible Library or Drivers that is 80% of what Nvidia is offering today.
Re: The decline of computers as a general-purpose technology
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2. Hardware is very cheap, computers can be tiny, you can order components from anywhere In the past I could get any component I might need from a local store in 20 minutes. now I've got 2 weeks to 3 months turnaround on shipping from shenzhen.
The obverse of this is that everybody can get whatever they need from Shenzen nowadays, not just some privileged American communities.
I live in Germany, so I never had the advantages of the US situation with fry's, radioshack or microcenter.
And companies sending parts remotely always existed, all that happened is now some have less access.
Re: The decline of computers as a general-purpose technology
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believe me, in general I'm with you. But at the end of the day you just don't have to buy an iphone . Get an android device, flash it with Linux, buy a pinephone, do whatever you want! But Apple doesn't sell tinker's devices, they sell a walled garden. Why force them to spend even 10 seconds of effort on something that isn't their business, when there are plenty of other options? There's a reason I don't have any App…
Why force them to spend even 10 seconds of effort on something that isn't their business... The law should make it "their business". I don't believe it should be possible to waive your right to legally do what you want with your property. (I have similar feelings about restrictive covenants in the conveyance of real property, for example.) Since we're editing here: It seems pretty pointless to mandate that all compan…
I mean if I sell you a brick, it's not gonna connect to wifi. I'm not advertising it as connecting to wifi, so if you buy it than it's really your fault for thinking it will. Similarly, Apple doesn't prevent you from doing anything you want with an I-Phone. You can (if you so choose) saw it in half, open it up and try to figure it out, and interact with it in any way you please. If those interactions don't yield results you want, you really can't blame Apple since they pretty much told you what you were getting.
Now there are some real scummy practices that Apple uses, and those should be regulated. Software that detects tampering and shuts down the device? Sure, get rid of it. Some vital service they can (and do) shut down at any time, bricking the device? Regulate it to nothing. But ultimately 'do what you want with your property' is completely different from 'sell whatever I personally want in a device regardless of how others feel'. Apple sells a walled garden by design, and buying one of their devices pretty much entails realizing that.
Re: The decline of computers as a general-purpose technology
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believe me, in general I'm with you. But at the end of the day you just don't have to buy an iphone . Get an android device, flash it with Linux, buy a pinephone, do whatever you want! But Apple doesn't sell tinker's devices, they sell a walled garden. Why force them to spend even 10 seconds of effort on something that isn't their business, when there are plenty of other options? There's a reason I don't have any App…
Believe me, in general I'm with you. But at the end of the day you just don't have to buy an iphone. Get an android device, flash it with Linux, buy a pinephone, do whatever you want! The problem with this argument is the same as any essential utility. At some point, it becomes impossible to live a normal life without access to a certain facility. If access is only available through a monopoly provider or a small eno…
It may well be that internet access in general is an essential utility, though I'd disagree that any device in particular is. However, the fact that the 'two dominant platforms' continue existing is mostly due to people's personal preferences. Besides, saying that Android devices even approach the same level of locked-downness of Apple devices is absurd; I run an open source version of android on all my mobile devices, and not once was it particularly difficult to install.
Even more, it doesn't seem to me that cell phone manufacturers are currently moving the market in particular unison. There are still more and less open devices, just as there are more or less expensive ones. Perhaps we're moving slowly towards that, but we're certainly a long way away as of now.
My primary issue is the difference between ensuring that no one has to get screwed and ensuring that no one can get a product they want. So long as there are more open devices, no one is compelled to use an IPhone. Anyone who wants to be protected from big bad apple may simply refrain from paying them. A utility is generally regulated not because of its vitality, but because of inherent restrictions on consumer choice. Unless it becomes impossible to just not buy Apple's shitty locked down hardware, it doesn't make sense to constrict.
Re: The decline of computers as a general-purpose technology
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
What Google did with the Chromebooks-- an interlock that zeros the manufacturer-provided root-of-trust-- is a good example of all that I want. No more, no less. Let me flip a switch and make the device "untrusted" so that I can load my own software. I am being dogmatic. I can't think objectively about this because I have yet to see how it benefits society to absolutely remove the rights of owners to legally do what t…
Even with an iPhone, you have the right to flash whatever firmware you feel like. This has been upheld in US Supreme Court cases. Apple simply is under no obligation for it to be easy for you to do so. Jailbroken iPhones aren't illegal. Apple treats them as a security risk, since mechanisms for jailbreaking iPhones exploit security flaws in order to get root-level code execution. I can't say they're wrong to do so! I…
> you have the right to flash whatever firmware you feel like... Apple simply is under no obligation for it to be easy for you to do so
This is disingenuous. Apple is not being called out for failing to create desirable functionality for iPhones. Rather Apple (et al) are being criticized for deliberately acting to purposefully constrain functionality. The first criticism would be asking manufacturers to do work to improve their products. The second criticism is telling them to stop crippling devices they sell.
Re: The decline of computers as a general-purpose technology
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believe me, in general I'm with you. But at the end of the day you just don't have to buy an iphone . Get an android device, flash it with Linux, buy a pinephone, do whatever you want! But Apple doesn't sell tinker's devices, they sell a walled garden. Why force them to spend even 10 seconds of effort on something that isn't their business, when there are plenty of other options? There's a reason I don't have any App…
That's like saying you don't have to buy a car, or you don't have to get an air conditioner. Sure, you could tolerate a 2 hour bus ride and a summer with 90+ degree heat waves, but there is no reason to put yourself through that given the cost of the alternative luxury is not insurmountable even for working people in expensive places. We are in a similar place in the mobile world, where life is getting increasingly r…
But I mean, you can just buy a different type of car. Like, if you feel really strongly that every car ought to have a headphone jack because otherwise consumers are stripped of their right to play music through a headphone jack in their car, you can buy a car that has one. You aren't forever stuck on the bus, you just have to look at more than one whole car before you decide which one to buy.
Same goes for Apple; I would never use an Apple device, because I like to have control over my technology. Somehow, despite my amazingly brave stand against tyranny and capitalism, I still have a phone, running a LineageOS install that took me 20 minutes and an online guide to get running years ago. On the other hand, if I wanted to give my grandma a device I was confident she couldn't somehow force into a bad state, I would like it to be legal to sell me one.
Re: The decline of computers as a general-purpose technology
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as it’s not possible to provide “Lawful Access to Encryption” (master keys) without weakening crypto, it’s not possible to “quickly and easily add your own custom programs without asking permission” that _also_ provides the safety so your mom or grandfather don’t install something that allows crooks to drain their bank accounts. General purpose computers are great for people who know what they’re doing (although…
So, you're saying that there is absolutely now way, no how that we can put up a fence to keep people with low understanding of tech from compiling and installing some random app? I don't buy it. > I don’t think that that Windows 95-like “permissions” are what most people want or need. That's an extremely bad faith take on my argument because there's a very wide spectrum of possibilities between the Windows 95 free-fo…
Google puts up tons of scary warnings for sideloading…and IIRC, that’s part of Epic’s case against Google (the warnings discourage people from installing alternative stores or from alternative means), in addition to Google’s position on Play. (I do not believe that Epic has a meaningful case on any front, but that’s ultimately for the courts to decide. The courts often decide wrongly, as was recently done for Oracle v Google re: the copyright of status of APIs.)
You say that Apple can make you pay extra. OK. Here’s a $99/year developer contract with which you can develop and install software that you want as you want (I believe that these builds are good for ~90 days, so you recompile/reinstall every 90 days; unlike the 7 previously mentioned). But people don’t _like_ that and have said that’s unfair.
I am completely saying that there’s no _meaningful_ way we can put up a fence to keep people who _shouldn’t_ be running random apps from doing so. We can’t keep users from clicking on _links_ that they shouldn’t be clicking on. Just this morning, I had a neighbour ask me about one of those full-screen “WARNING FROM MICROSOFT YOUR COMPUTER IS INFECTED” pop-ups; even though she was smart enough not to click on anything, she _still_ copied down the phone number to maybe call the scammer. My father, a couple of weeks ago, didn’t know about Ctrl-W / Command-W on a similar full-screen hijack that had affected both his Chromebook (locked down) and my mom’s MacBook (mostly not locked down).
I remember a few years ago there were a number of minor malware issues that were caused by people following instructions randomly on the internet to open the javascript console and “paste this in to see something neat”. So no, I don’t believe we can put a fence that protects the ignorant / unready / unwise but enables the people who think that they know better (and actually sometimes might).
If you can crack that, then there’s going to be a lot of people who will be at your door to reward you…and then many more looking for the backdoors you left so that they can continue to infiltrate systems for their own rewards (whether state actors or criminal actors).