[moocow01]

There is quite a lot of black and white thinking here which is the primary problem.

Look, consumer technology is always a mess - apps vs web vs native vs desktop vs mobile vs ... etc etc. The truth of it is that we have so many choices because technology is meant to solve individual problems as best as possible.

There will never be one winner.

I think the author assumes just because tablets and apps are growing (I assume this is still happening) that this is the end game. Its not - tablets and apps certainly will be prominent for what they are good at. The app environment sucks for some things. Free flow of information and low friction information searching certainly is one use case where the web is so so much better than apps can ever be in their current form.

Lastly "apps" have always existed. Nintendo games were for all intensive purposes apps in that they were self confined experiences you played on what essentially was a technological black box. In truth if you look historically at how we have been using computing - things are more the same than different - you just have to remove the silly titles we give everything.

[betterunix]

"There will never be one winner."

There will, however, be many losers, and PCs are going to be one of those losers. The form factor won't die, but the philosophy and freedom will die. It is inevitable, given the priorities people have and the money to be made.

If things continue going the way they are going, the only computers that will give users the freedom to do what we can do now will be locked away in research labs, available only to the lucky few who can land jobs in such places. These computers will be so expensive that only people who are doing funded research will be able to afford them. The next best thing will be computers targeted at developers (perhaps "debug" computers), which will be too expensive for most people to consider buying them but (hopefully) inexpensive enough for hackers to get their hands on them; these will still be loaded with restrictions, but at least the user will be able to write and run code and use a debugger. The only computers that will be anywhere near the price point that most people will consider paying will be those that are restricted to running software that was signed by some large corporation (i.e. only approved programs), with only the macro systems for a few "professional" programs (priced beyond what most people can afford) being available for user programming.

Why would software or hardware companies want it any other way? The next "big thing" will have to be filtered through the app store system, and the little startup that makes that software will be bought out before they can overtake the established players. The big media companies will form partnerships with the companies that control app stores (or just mergers, so that the whole stack is controlled by the same entity) that will be immensely profitable. ESPN will require all of Dell's customers to buy the ESPN app, without the option to get a refund or to remove it, and any company that does not take that deal will be barred from having the ESPN app on any of their products. Governments will love it -- no more uncontrolled cryptography, no more Wikileaks, CALEA-style laws for computers, and a chance to spot political movements before they take hold.

"Free flow of information and low friction information searching certainly is one use case where the web is so so much better than apps can ever be in their current form"

You can just pay $1/mo. for a search engine app, right? It will have an integrated web browser/hook into the installed browser. Not much different from having a Bloomberg terminal on your desk, except that it would be terrible for consumers (but profitable for businesses).

"Lastly "apps" have always existed. Nintendo games..."

Gary McGraw has pushed the idea that the security systems seen in video games ultimately become the security systems on all consumer computing devices. At one time, this app store model was something only video game consoles had; now we see it on tablets, and soon we will see it in other form factors. Video game consoles have highly expensive, hard-to-buy "debug" versions and developer systems; is there any reason to think that such a system could not come to exist for other consumer electronics?

[jiggy2011]

I actually don't think that computers capable of doing stuff other than media consumption will get more expensive. I actually think the opposite will happen and you can already see the start of this.

Look at things like Raspberry Pi , ODROID and arduino. Very hackable stuff at rock bottom prices. With faster internet connectivity comes access to remote virtual machines which can be rented by the hour and make stuff like huge scale data processing accessible to the teenage hacker in his bedroom.

Ultimately the future will require more people to understand not just how to use the tech on a basic level but people who can innovate with it.

If the US doesn't do this , another nation will and be all the richer for it.

Of course there will always be a market for passive consumption type devices as well as specialised ones. It's just that these used to be radios , TVs , CD players , calculators and nintendo consoles now they are iPads.

[alttab]

"Ultimately the future will require more people to understand not just how to use the tech on a basic level but people who can innovate with it."

This. While in one sense it is profitable to rope off technology and control it - having the general population embrace the skill set of working with computers is far more profitable overall for everyone.

In 100 years, every single person will have grown up in a world dominated by electronics with the presence of the internet. Being a fact of life makes the barrier of entry a lot lower than it is today when there are more options.

[glesica]

And all of that will persist for a short time until someone invents something new that disrupts it all, just like the Internet disrupted old media.

That is why I find the legal wrangling more worrying than anything else. Apple and Google can't stop me from inventing and popularizing a new technology, but the government can do a pretty good job of that, especially the second part.

[yoyoma7]

For future reference and edification: "for all intensive purposes" => "for all intents and purposes."