David Chernicoff
It's alive and well
Hardware? Ho-hum
Christopher Dawson
Best Argument: It's alive and well
The Rebuttal
-
Great Debate Moderator
Tablets
How would you improve tablet hardware and how does software differentiate?
Posted by Lawrence Dignan
Its all about usability
If I had to pick one thing it would be color screens with the readability of e-Ink screens in daylight and similar battery life. That battery issues certainly seems to be the common denominator here. Software defines the user experiences, and on that front iOS is the clear leader. I'm not as down on ICS as a lot of folks, but a solid, stable OS is critical for tablet success.
David Chernicoff
I am for It's alive and well
Make it cheap and take advantage of touch
The Kindle Fire gets people excited because of its price. We can go a lot lower on hardware that will still be durable and highly usable. Tablet hardware is actually quite compelling at this point; now Moore's Law needs to kick in. Software, however, is the biggest differentiator. When the same old design principles go into applications as were used on desktop PCs, then you don't have anything that is better suited to a tablet in your hand than a notebook in your lap. Optimize that software to take advantage of touch and improve accessibility for all users and you have some very cool, innovative software.
Christopher Dawson
I am for Hardware? Ho-hum
-
Great Debate Moderator
Hardware advances
What are your top three hardware advances in the last five years?
Posted by Lawrence Dignan
It's more the combinations of technologies than individual changes
From the consumer perspective, tablets, smartphones, multi-core CPUs
David Chernicoff
I am for It's alive and well
LCD technologies, 4G data, and drastic price reductions
The latest LCDs, whether on TVs, phones, tablets, or otherwise make for great entertainment and productivity experiences. Once you've used 4G, 3G is totally painful, especially if you're trying to get work done. And can you imagine what a 50" flat panel, if it had existed, would have cost 5 years ago? Or the performance equivalent of an iPad 2?
Christopher Dawson
I am for Hardware? Ho-hum
-
Great Debate Moderator
Yes it's another ultrabook question
For the record, I'm ultrabooked out right now, but I have to ask. Is the ultrabook a sign of hardware innovation? Why or why not?
Posted by Lawrence Dignan
No
The ultrabook is only innovation in the sense that it is an attempt to commoditize what would previously have been high-end specialty components. Perhaps there will be a surprise announcement at CES that will show something truly innovative within the ultrabook products, but I'm not holding my breath. Though something really impressive at a sub-$500 price point would really catch my attention...
David Chernicoff
I am for It's alive and well
Nope...not at $1000 a pop it's not
When you can achieve similar performance in laptops that are half an inch thicker, a couple pounds heavier, and $500 cheaper, ultrabooks *so* don't represent hardware innovation. Thinner and lighter is great, but this is post-recession 2012. We need great performance, great battery life, and, more importantly, great value. If OEMs want to innovate, lets boost battery life and drop costs, not make devices that can slice tomatoes. I don't need another Ginsu 2000.
Christopher Dawson
I am for Hardware? Ho-hum
-
Great Debate Moderator
Show me new form factors
What new form factors are necessary to really push the hardware innovation curve?
Posted by Lawrence Dignan
This is a tough one
Function should almost always define form, so the intended use if the device should define what the future will bring. That being said, the pattern always seems to be smaller, lighter, thinner, and faster (some appropriate combination) as the primary drivers in functionality. Vendors usually follow this, sometimes, unfortunately, to the extent that they negatively impact functionality, then the cycle starts all over.
David Chernicoff
I am for It's alive and well
Light, cheap tablets and clamshell tablets
If I want to leave my laptop behind, I need something on which I can type easily. A software/LCD keyboard that opens up on my tablet without adding to its weight would fill the bill. In the same way, that long-awaited $100 tablet is more important than a 4-core monster for $500. As David has pointed out, battery life needs to increase drastically. I need to get more than 2 hours out of my phone when I'm hitting 4G networks hard with tethering. Finally, truly usable, all-weather, foldable computers would be game changers. I want to access the web or applications anytime, anywhere on a device that I can fit into my pocket with a richness that requires at least 10" of screen real estate. For that, it needs to fold, roll, or bend and resist the elements in ways I'm not inclined to test with my iPad.
Christopher Dawson
I am for Hardware? Ho-hum
-
Great Debate Moderator
Parallel computing
Where does parallel computing fit into the hardware innovation equation?
Posted by Lawrence Dignan
In some very specific cases
A good multi-core system is able to handle multi-tasking better, presuming all of the software has been properly coded. As Chris pointed out , you can only type so fast, but it's nice to be able to continue to type and do your foreground tasks while in the background your photo editing software is batch processing the 200 pictures you took at the park that day. In the HPC and academic computing worlds, massive parallelism will be the future for many projects, even as individual core performance continues to increase
David Chernicoff
I am for It's alive and well
For now, it doesn't
It's a software issue. I can build one heck of a cluster in my basement with cheap PCs and any number of Linux distros, but the software that can really take advantage of such a cluster isn't generally available at Staples. Or off the shelf at all in too many cases. As David mentioned, the biggest place where we need to see further hardware innovation is in cooling, energy efficiency, and power density. We have the cores and they're pretty darned cheap already.
Christopher Dawson
I am for Hardware? Ho-hum
-
Great Debate Moderator
Smartphones maxed
Let's look at smartphones: Has hardware innovation stopped?
Posted by Lawrence Dignan
The improvements continue
Multi-core CPUs, actual HD resolution displays, networking faster than many wired connections, and the beginnings of portable AI. I don???t think that innovation has stopped; perhaps some technologists have simply become jaded by the sudden wealth of smartphone options. Look at the history of mobile phone technology and consider what the phone will look like in a decade.
David Chernicoff
I am for It's alive and well
It hasn't stopped completely, but how far can we go on 3G?
As with most things, the real bottleneck isn't the hardware, it's the bandwidth and the software. Android continues to lack the smoothness and responsiveness of iOS, for example, even on very fast phones. Similarly, those great 4G phones that promise the latest data-centric applications and rich browsing that can rival a desktop experience are utterly hobbled by ubiquitous 3G networks (or by expensive data plans that are far more lucrative for the phone companies than the phones are for OEMs). It's a chicken and egg problem. Why push the hardware envelope when the largest group of users struggles with platform fragmentation and poor optimization or spotty data connections? Or, for that matter, can't afford the sort of data plans needed to take advantage of the latest apps?
Christopher Dawson
I am for Hardware? Ho-hum
-
Great Debate Moderator
Software and hardware advances
Do you think that software adequately takes advantage of those hardware advances?
Posted by Lawrence Dignan
Not on the desktop/mobile side
There are still cycles being left unused and with the exception of certain software verticals that need every erg of power they can get, idle hardware is common. It may not seem that way to the user, but many inefficiencies in software design and coding result in a failure to take full advantage of the underlying hardware
David Chernicoff
I am for It's alive and well
Nope - how much software is truly optimized for many cores?
There's a reason that the big university computer science programs are partnering with the biggest Internet and software companies to build out massively parallel computing programs. There's also a reason that many desktop users are better off with 2 fast cores than 4 or 8 slower cores. Too much software still has not been optimized for advances in multicore technology or GPU processing. You can throw all the hardware you want at Word and it's still going to be Word. Curtis Cubicle can only type so fast.
Christopher Dawson
I am for Hardware? Ho-hum
-
Great Debate Moderator
And the business side
On the business technology side, what's hardware's standing? Big data, analytics and all of that seem to require some serious throughput. And Watson needs some heft too I guess.
Posted by Lawrence Dignan
At the back end, hardware is king
Raw computing power will always have its place, and one of those places is the corporate datacenter. Continued innovation in delivering better performing, more efficient hardware is driving product sales along with improved power efficiency, higher rack densities, and bigger pipes to deliver and gather data. Hardware innovation is alive and well at the backend, and it makes it easier for the end user to do their job. And that innovation is necessary for the success of the cloud, as well.
David Chernicoff
I am for It's alive and well
None of which matter to Joe Datacruncher in his cubicle
Throughput? You bet? Horsepower? Of course. In a data center. Increasingly on clusters of cheap computers. Supercomputers are the exception to the rule and data security concerns for most organizations dictate that crunching numbers on a laptop that can walk away in a train station is rarely an option any longer. Sure, there are content creators who rely on a high-end PCs, but the data center and, by extension, the cloud, is where companies are investing. Even there, though, the ability to take advantage of many cores and clustered computers is a software issue that needs addressing rather than a computing horsepower issue.
Christopher Dawson
I am for Hardware? Ho-hum
-
Great Debate Moderator
Kindle Fire, iPad
So Kindle Fire and iPad are the model to emulate for consumers?
Posted by Lawrence Dignan
In some ways
Consider that the iPad was cutting edge hardware with a good ecosystem start from the iPhone app store. It was the combination of hardware and software that made it a success. The Kindle Fire gives the user mediocre hardware and relies on the Amazon ecosystem and a low price to make it a compelling purchase. If the iPad had mediocre hardware, it would have died outright. The Fire is dependent upon that aforementioned bandwidth and ease of connectivity in order to deliver its user experience. The "right" model for future development still needs to be defined.
David Chernicoff
I am for It's alive and well
Yes, but more so the Fire
The iPad remains too expensive, providing a premium experience for premium users. That's a fine place in the market and has worked like a champ for Apple. However, the Kindle provides a good experience combined with a huge content ecosystem and, perhaps more importantly, its Silk browser leverages cloud computing muscle to improve the browsing experience rather than relying on the fastest hardware. It's also hitting the right price points since Amazon knows it will make its money on content and software instead of commodity hardware. Only Apple can command the sorts of margins required to make money on hardware any more.
Christopher Dawson
I am for Hardware? Ho-hum
-
Great Debate Moderator
The consumer front
On the consumer front, does hardware matter relative to software?
Posted by Lawrence Dignan
Not as much
Though there will always be those of us who like cutting edge performance and capabilities or niche activities such as video and high end photo editing. But for most consumers the hardware needs to be invisible and not impact the user experience; it needs to be able to handle whatever the user (and the software) throws at it and respond quickly and accurately. This means it has to be powerful enough and efficient enough to provide a good user experience; instant on and immediate response
David Chernicoff
I am for It's alive and well
For a minority, yes...
But for the majority? Not in the least. Look at console gaming. The gaming industry brings in many billions of dollars on new titles running on 5-year old hardware. The innovation is happening with the developers. The same goes for increasingly smart televisions and set-top boxes. They run Android or Linux on comparatively meager hardware (versus many desktop computers), but provide great experiences for consumers who, as their title implies, are more interested in consuming content than creating it. It doesn't take 8 cores to watch videos on YouTube, no matter what your resolution or screen size.
Christopher Dawson
I am for Hardware? Ho-hum
-
Great Debate Moderator
Cloud computing's role
How does cloud computing change the hardware equation? Given your mention of bandwidth and battery.
Posted by Lawrence Dignan
It "clouds" the issue
Cloud computing solutions for consumers are great until consumers realize that the infrastructure isnt in place to support every consumer moving key apps and requirements to cloud services. As ISPs continue to cap consumer bandwidth, the inability to utilize cloud services without additional cost will push people back to local resources. In my home near a major city, the ISP caps users to 250 GB/month in download, but at the home I have in the mountains, the only provider of fast Internet service caps users at 5 GB/month, which makes many current services useless if you do anything that streams video or data. Mobile users have to face current battery life issues; utilizing 4G technologies requires you to have a power outlet or spare batteries to make it through the day.
David Chernicoff
I am for It's alive and well
It's the single biggest reason...
...that I believe hardware has lost any real importance to the majority of users. It changes the equation completely and utterly. The cloud runs quite happily on clusters of commodity hardware. Web browsers don???t need much in the way of processing or graphical power either, at least by modern PC standards with at least a couple of cores and several gigs of RAM. Again, incremental improvements in hardware will bring richer experiences as local computing power can augment cloud computing, but cloud-based software and programming is already much more important than anything happening on the desktop (or tablet, or whatever).
Christopher Dawson
I am for Hardware? Ho-hum
-
Great Debate Moderator
Tapped out?
As we've seen in the tablet market, hardware can be copied but the software saves the day. Are we tapped out on hardware---more or less---so that advances are merely incremental?
Posted by Lawrence Dignan
Not at all
By its very nature hardware changes tend to be incremental, though major jumps are possible as long as new technologies are being developed. The tablet market has been somewhat unique; the first really successful player set the bar very high with the software side, so that competitors with better hardware but lessor software are having a difficult time competing. But if Apple doesnt up their hardware ante, they will eventually fall behind.
David Chernicoff
I am for It's alive and well
The key word is average
Obviously there is always room for advancement in hardware, but it???s increasingly irrelevant for most users. Incremental improvements in hardware will yield incremental improvements in the capabilities that software can exploit. However, most tablets, for example, can already show movies in full HD and support immersive gaming. Where else does the average consumer need to go? How about the average enterprise customer? This doesn???t just apply to tablets, but to all aspects of computing, setting aside the non-average exceptions.
Christopher Dawson
I am for Hardware? Ho-hum
-
Great Debate Moderator
What's needed on the hardware front?
It is true that we always view hardware through our current good enough prism. What developments would be game changers in your view?
Posted by Lawrence Dignan
It's all about power
The number one game changer right now would be significantly improved battery technology. It's mobile devices that seem to have the highest profile at the moment, and they are completely constrained by power availability.
David Chernicoff
I am for It's alive and well
3D and the ability to leverage graphical horsepower for hybrid apps
Applications that leverage cloud computing scale running in a web browser and delivering far richer experiences (most obviously 3D) could be quite graphics intensive. Although a lot of heavy lifting can happen in the cloud, there could certainly be a place for some local horsepower. Perhaps the biggest barrier is bandwidth, though. If the ubiquitous broadband issues can be solved, then we'd have a game changer in the other direction, making local hardware even less relevant.
Christopher Dawson
I am for Hardware? Ho-hum
-
Great Debate Moderator
Testing 1, 2, 3
Just doing a mike check.
Posted by Lawrence Dignan
Here
And good to go
David Chernicoff
I am for It's alive and well
I'm here
Ready to go at it
Christopher Dawson
I am for Hardware? Ho-hum
Talkback
Of course it matters
As for phones, there are some pretty intense games on phones these days, which imposes a requirement on components.
RE: Hardware: Does it really matter anymore?
RE: Hardware: Does it really matter anymore?
So, you attempt to refute a claim showing where a change in hardware provided better performance...but your "reason" is because it provided a performance boost (i.e. better power handling).
And yes, power handling *is* a performance area. Otherwise, you wouldn't see laptop & tablet manufacturers doing all they can to minimize the power consumption of their chips & CPUs to make sure battery life lasts as long as possible...
Declined video game integrity, response time of monitors and need for power
This all-in-one world of PC's is finally coming to a reality. People like me who are two finger typist and have enjoyed playing games on their computers for years are coming to an end. Even an XBox 360 will be seeking further new technology with Crystal LED televisions in the near future to raise the bar and create a grandure revenue stream for the next, 'Next Generation'.
RE: Hardware: Does it really matter anymore?
Apple moved from PowerPC because both Motorola and IBM failed them.
Intel processors have always been junk.
Does not matter for everyone
RE: Hardware: Does it really matter anymore?
"I have a 2010 Macbook Air and it only has a 1.86Ghz dual core Intel"
Then perhaps you don't realize that there is certain hardware inside that particular device which makes that low-speed processor liveable.
Why would someone buy more than they "need"? Because it's faster, that's why. Sure, there's a law of diminishing returns that kicks in for the highest-end components (i.e. the fastest video cards, SSDs, and processors that no other company can match) but aside from that you usually get the speed you pay for (with the exception of Apple for obvious reasons, and if you're buying Apple, "need" is not a factor).
I'll use you as an example. Why on earth would you (or any other person who buys a computer to just surf the Internet and process Word documents) buy a 1100-dollar Macbook Air when PCs that cost 400 dollars can do the same thing?
The answer is, quite simply, the hardware. Does a better keyboard, better trackpad, better battery life, and a drive that makes the computer much more responsive to your commands translate into a better user experience? If it didn't, how could Apple even exist?
Plus, people usually don't run out and buy every single thing that comes out for the reason that it isn't much faster than the older stuff (you're only usually looking at a 10% increase in performance). For example, you don't have the latest 2011 Macbook Air- and it isn't all that faster than the one you have now.
But those 10% increases add up. So when you're looking at the 2015 Macbook models (assuming Apple sticks with Intel and everything's the same), you'll be looking at a much larger increase.
If it didn't, why replace old, still-living components?
My 1998-vintage ThinkPad 600E still does those jobs just as well as your MBA can. Yet I've effectively retired that machine from service because I needed something that does what it cannot at the hardware level. Just like my old smartphone- I want a device that responds faster when I tilt it and power it up so I've retired the old one (plus there are some things it simply can't run due to hard limitations).
So I don't think it's oversold because the more expensive stuff is nearly always better and it stays usable longer.
RE: Hardware: Does it really matter anymore?
RE: Hardware: Does it really matter anymore?
Hey! The vote button doesn't seem to work! I'm for Ho Hum!
RE: Hardware: Does it really matter anymore?
All for under $1000. A bargain compared to the 'Air'. Then again, If you have lots of cash, and you like to show off, why not go with the High Profile you can use as a mirror.