Joyent manifesto:The influence of web applications has made its way into the user experiences of operating systems accelerating the acceptance, by users, of user experiences that can be best developed using web application development stacks (or portable runtimes such as Flash, Slingshot, etc.). This will push the client operating system to a position of irrelevance in time. Yeah, I'll need an OS to run my device, but I won't care which OS because developers are moving up the stack on the edge device just as they've moved up the stack on the server. Interesting.
I find myself migrating towards web apps, e.g. yahoo mail, google calendar. But all of this pre-supposes a really good network. If the way may current employer treats the internet is indicative of corporate IT policies in general, then there's going to be a whole bunch of inertia in the business world.
Actual quote: "Oh, wireless broadband connections are just for a quick check of email, not for doing real work." And, fucking-A, with *their* remote access software stack this turns out to be true.
It's interesting that this represents a return to something like the "central mainframe with smart terminals" concept of computing, although there are many "mainframes", and the communication is connectionless/packet-based rather than RS-232.
To a certain extent, I still have a mindset of "I want my data, and I want my app", but good net apps with reliable network storage are slowly changing my approach.
"I want my data, and I want my app" - I agree, but I've sort of given up. Or, like you, I'm being won over. And as mobile computing takes off it will just make more and more sense. Although, on the other hand, storage keeps shrinking, so I guess my phone can eventually have enough local storage if I want it to.
But my guess is that for almost all users (not counting people like you) the distinction between local and network data stores will become meaningless. Who cares as long as it works.
I use 6 different computers on a regular basis, and will be adding a Moto Q soon. That's really helping me let go of having data on my local drive.
Did they cripple the wifi on that? I can't remember the outcome...
The original Moto Q has wifi that is crippled by Verizon. Verizon also cripples the analog AMPS capability.
The Moto Q Global has no wifi capability for AT&T to cripple. Applications that take advantage of the built-in GPS (true GPS, not cell tower triangulation) cost extra, on a monthly basis. However, I wouldn't be surprised if third parties fill the gaps.
It's irritating that you can download/upload files to the phone with the basic plan, but oh noes don't move that data to a compooter! That's extra!
The data plan from AT&T (using the phone as a bluetooth modem) is $25/month extra. I've heard that 3rd party apps are available for the Verizon Q9m to unlock the modem capability.
MS Outlook has IMAP-like capability, allowing synchronization across devices. The functionality of Outlook is nice, the insular nature of it sucks badly. It violates the "I want my own data" concept to the extreme. Don't get me started on .pst files.
|
- jim 11-08-2007 5:37 pm
I find myself migrating towards web apps, e.g. yahoo mail, google calendar. But all of this pre-supposes a really good network. If the way may current employer treats the internet is indicative of corporate IT policies in general, then there's going to be a whole bunch of inertia in the business world.
Actual quote: "Oh, wireless broadband connections are just for a quick check of email, not for doing real work." And, fucking-A, with *their* remote access software stack this turns out to be true.
It's interesting that this represents a return to something like the "central mainframe with smart terminals" concept of computing, although there are many "mainframes", and the communication is connectionless/packet-based rather than RS-232.
To a certain extent, I still have a mindset of "I want my data, and I want my app", but good net apps with reliable network storage are slowly changing my approach.
- mark 11-08-2007 9:16 pm
"I want my data, and I want my app" - I agree, but I've sort of given up. Or, like you, I'm being won over. And as mobile computing takes off it will just make more and more sense. Although, on the other hand, storage keeps shrinking, so I guess my phone can eventually have enough local storage if I want it to.
But my guess is that for almost all users (not counting people like you) the distinction between local and network data stores will become meaningless. Who cares as long as it works.
- jim 11-08-2007 10:14 pm
I use 6 different computers on a regular basis, and will be adding a Moto Q soon. That's really helping me let go of having data on my local drive.
- mark 11-08-2007 11:43 pm
Did they cripple the wifi on that? I can't remember the outcome...
- jim 11-09-2007 1:31 am
The original Moto Q has wifi that is crippled by Verizon. Verizon also cripples the analog AMPS capability.
The Moto Q Global has no wifi capability for AT&T to cripple. Applications that take advantage of the built-in GPS (true GPS, not cell tower triangulation) cost extra, on a monthly basis. However, I wouldn't be surprised if third parties fill the gaps.
It's irritating that you can download/upload files to the phone with the basic plan, but oh noes don't move that data to a compooter! That's extra!
The data plan from AT&T (using the phone as a bluetooth modem) is $25/month extra. I've heard that 3rd party apps are available for the Verizon Q9m to unlock the modem capability.
MS Outlook has IMAP-like capability, allowing synchronization across devices. The functionality of Outlook is nice, the insular nature of it sucks badly. It violates the "I want my own data" concept to the extreme. Don't get me started on .pst files.
- mark 11-09-2007 3:57 am