Comments for 26 March 1996

The demise of the personal computer garnered some interesting responses. On a positive note:

Date: Sunday, 21-Apr-96 08:41 PM
From: Dave Leet
Subject: the demise of the personal computer

Nice article; especially like your comments on the often repeated
prediction of the demise of the personal computer, and the obsession to
market new stuff to people who don't need it.  We just had a bond turned
down to outfit the school district with $30MM worth of computers and
support-- apparently the local populace had more sense (or more distance
from high-powered computer sales people than the school districts
did)and decided education money might better be spent on something a bit
more tangible and long-lasting than soon-to-be-obsolete computer
equipment, such as education! Our society seems to get obsessed with
gadgetry. 

Rhetorical question: why is the word "technology" now always associated
with computers?  Seems to me it is better associated with new energy
sources, material science, genetics, etc.   Oh, well.....

'Internet' is just the flavor of the week, you know?

On the flip side, there are those with a difference of opinion:

Date: Saturday, 04-May-96 08:14 AM
From: kevin sickles
Subject: Demise of the personal computer

Jim,  I don't think you get it,  

1)  The network computer will not replace the PC they will serve
different needs/markets.

2)  There isn't going to be one network computer but many different
network computers serving different functions and significantly varying
in price and function.  From handheld wireless to complete multimedia
cable connected machines.

3) The marketplace and revenues for network computers will grow to be
larger than the pc marketplace.

4) It will occur because there is huge marketplace for devices that
don't need the constant care feeding and administration that the pc
requires today.

The mini didn't destroy the mainframe,  The pc didn't destroy the mini,
The network computer will be another new and exciting marketplace and
will be the avenue for opening the net to people that don't have $2,000.
Which is 60%+ of the population of the U.S. not to mention the world.

The network is the computer.

To which I respond: (1) No disagreement here; (2) So when does it stop being a network computer and just a specialized PC? In the Eighties, computers without hard drives were called "diskless workstations" and didn't exactly make anybody rich; (3) Awfully absolute for a yet-to-be-developed product; (4) No, there's a perceived need by some, which is different than a true marketplace.

But my big problem with the whole scenario is that Larry Ellison can't seem to formulate what the network computer tangibly will do. One week, he's talking about a personal digital assistant, another it's a desktop machine tied to an application server ... flavor of the week, indeed. I thought it was a standard business school practice to formulate a substantial plan to act upon. Better fire up that Word for Windows and get something down on paper, boys.

Now, I swore off posting any more Fry's letters, because this isn't the "Fry's Sucks Homepage" ... but from my email, you wouldn't know the difference. Nonetheless, Mark Shapiro's letter makes a good point of questioning my journalistic vigor:

Date: Wednesday, 17-Apr-96 03:48 AM
From: msha@earthlink.net
Subject: Breakfast at Fry's

I can't believe you gave up that roll of film! Sure, you can rationalize it
by saying  you've discovered a way to get their attention. But what about
your rights as a  photojouranlist? (Notwithstanding that it's not your day
job.) What about my right to  snicker at the pics (one visit to the Canoga
Park, Ca. store and I'm a Fry's hater for  life.)

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that there is nothing they could have
done to you  except have you leave the store. Even if you broke their rule
against taking pictures,  you broke no law. If they have a rule against
eating in the store and you insist on  licking an ice cream cone, then they
can ask you to stop or to leave. But they can't  seize your Ben $ Jerry's
(by the way, somebody should check those guys out.) For that  matter,
you could have published the pictures and there's not a thing they could
do about  it.

I've been harassing people with my camera since I took up photography in
1979. Probably,  unlike you though, I do not limit myself to harassing
greedy corporations. I also make it  a point to harrass and invade the
privacy of innocent private citizens. I give up my film  to nobody. And
I have the scars to proove it (mostly psychic).

That film is your property and your aritstic product  Would you please go
back and get it  from them?

I enjoy your web pages. Keep up the good work.

Mark Shapiro
msha@earthlink.net

I suspect that the shots I took are either destroyed, or at best hanging in some "Dumb Folks Caught Taking Pictures" bulletin-board museum at Fry's HQ.

Nonetheless, Mark, I agree with your position; they had no right to take the camera away. But when you're facing three thugs, well, I'm no Jackie Chan, okay? (What's always piqued my curiousity was, where did these baboons come from? All the other Fry's employees are either standard nerd material or greased-hair car salesmen. Do they hire bouncers just to take care of camera-toting geeks?)

But an expose of Ben & Jerry's? If 'Internet' is the flavor of the week, then what kind of ice cream would they make? Maybe "Cyber Strawberry"? How 'bout "Geek Grape?"

How 'bout I stick to writing Web pages?