The idea is that you can scale down a PC to the point where it's just a keyboard with a display and a wireless client and use an internet connection for everything. It's basically the old "dumb terminal" concept all over again. Anyone here remember the golden age of using a VT-100? This idea keeps resurfacing in the industry every three or four years, some of the heavy hitters offer some products, and then the buzz dies down, but in 2008 when we have really robust web-based apps like Gmail, Google Apps, Quicken Online, Photoshop Online, etc., it might catch on again. The industry has been trying to make the "PC experience" cheaper for consumers and businesses for a long time, but the apps were never there to do it. Now that it looks like we're getting there, the idea of the "internet terminal" is making a comeback.
Sounds like an iPhone/Smart phone to me... portable, web apps, internet terminal, voice/text/email communication... I really don't see the real NEED for Netbooks, which are basically going to be used for word processing on crippled laptops. Netbooks aren't going to be used for gaming, or any heavy duty applications like graphics or compiling code. Maybe I'm just not aware of what else Netbooks provide beyond simpler mobile text input with large keyboards than phones. Maybe it's because I'm just a person who NEEDS a computer with some horsepower under the hood. I'm just not sure what value there is in crippled laptops with minimal processing power. I mean, if all you need is a low powered wireless computer, why not just keep using the one you've already got? Why spend more money on something new that's low powered?
I don't think they expect people to ditch their existing computers now just to get a netbook, but the long view is that eventually, when those computers die, they'll be able to buy something cheaper and "dumber" because most of the things they used to do locally will be available on the web. Again, think of the way it was back in the days of mainframes and dumb terminals. The processing power was all on the server side and the terminal just served as a "window" into it. In most business environments, the majority of people just need to email, word process, or use spreadsheets. Now that we're developing web-based versions of those applications, it doesn't make sense to waste resources putting a full-featured computer on peoples' desks when all they'll need to run locally is a browser. With home users, most people just want to get on the internet to surf and email, and if you can make it as simple as plugging in a toaster and just as cheap, so much the better. Of course, a netbook won't appeal to a business user who needs to do something specialized like Photoshop or a home user who wants to play Quake (although they are working on moving that stuff to the web, too). So you're right, you're really not the target market for something like this but many other people and businesses will be. It's all moving into "the cloud," dude...
Eehhhhh... I'm skeptical about that. For smaller companies of under 25 people, maybe... but I don't have much confidence in cloud computing for larger companies and/or corporations.
True..we've developed our web GUI (I work for a financial services software firm) and it runs on IE. Not great as for bank they need quick screen refreshes and IE takes 2 seconds just to render! So we've done some work with Chrome and a screen refresh takes milliseconds. Only problem is no bank will touch Chrome with a bargepole right now. Large Corps aren't going to put their data in the cloud anytime soon. If anything legal and regulatory laws expressly prevent them from doing so.
Yeah, most companies are going to make their own "clouds," implement their own server that hosts the apps and data while their workers use netbooks/browsing terminals. It's a hard sell to get them to rely on the internet to store their apps and data.
Agreed. I still think there is too much holding cloud computing back. First of all, it's still too slow, even on fast machines. Javascript performance is going to have to improve radically in order for it to even a worthy alternative. Like you mentioned, Chrome has greatly improved JS performance, but only on a certain subset. There is still tons of room for improvment. IE's implementation is incredibly slow and often times not even standards complient Another problem arises when you have consumer level content. You have to target so many different browsers and versions, it makes it really difficult to program around. Often times you just aim for the lowest common demoninator. I still have to support IE6 at work, which tries my patience daily.
The browser compatibility thing isn't as much of an issue for folks like Google or Microsoft, who are programming everything in a straight line from the app, to the browser, to the operating system. It's going to be interesting to see where the concept goes in the next couple of years.
