News - IDC: 13 percent of PCs to be ARM by 2015

[aidanjt]

But it's not a valid point. There are ARM-based PC-like devices on the market, so there is trending data for an appropriate class of device.

Which devices? Tablets? They're not PCs, not even close. They're overgrown smartphones, only without the phone bit.

There are also confirmed future product launches that make ARM-based PCs nigh-on inevitable.

And when some of those start selling, then you have data to start making projections

It's ridiculous to say that you can't predict sales patterns for a device until it reaches mass market

No, it's ridiculous to say you can predict sales patterns based on no related data. You wouldn't look up at the sky and use that observation to make weather forecasts for the whole of Europe for the next fortnight. So why would you do it for technology sales?

because if you took that point of view no-one would ever make any new devices because they wouldn't be able to predict if people would buy them or not!

That's why it's called business. There are no certainties. You take what seems to be a good idea run the risk, and it either pays off or it doesn't.

You extrapolate from the nearest appropriate equivalent. And from personal experience, I can confirm that an Android tablet with keyboard dock is a very close equivalent to an entry level laptop or netbook for typical usage patterns.

It's still not a PC. There's more to a PC than a keyboard and a GUI.

[scaryjim]

Which devices? Tablets? They're not PCs, not even close.

...

There's more to a PC than a keyboard and a GUI.

Not to 90%, possibly more, of the PC-buying world. How do you define a PC? Because I'd assume it's based on usage patterns, which for most people means web surfing, email, social networking, music / video playback, word processing, and image editing (by which I mean touching up digital photos). Whether you like it or not, you can do pretty much all of that as well on a decent Android tablet with a keyboard as you can on an Atom-based Windows netbook. You can do most of it on an Android tablet *without* a keyboard, frankly. So unless you want to take netbooks *out* of the PC bracket, it's going to be kind of hard to justify *not* including things like the ASUS Transformer / Slider...

[aidanjt]

A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator

Now, general-purpose, and requiring no intervening computer operator, implies that the device must be capable of self-hosting a toolchain so it, and it's user, can make it's own programmes. A small percentage of people avail themselves of this PC feature, but it's a vital one, none the less. And one which every PC operating system has available for it.

[scaryjim]

... general-purpose, and requiring no intervening computer operator, implies that the device must be capable of self-hosting a toolchain so it, and it's user, can make it's own programmes. ...

Utterly unconvinced by that argument. The definition you supplied specifically states "operated" by an end user, not "programmed" by an end user. You have inferred that it should be programmable on the same device, but the definition doesn't come anywhere near implying that.

By your definition an Android tablet is unarguably a PC, as it is definitely a "general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user".

Thanks

[aidanjt]

In the mainframe days (the branching point to the PC), the operator WAS the programmer. That's where the definition stems from. You also skipped over the "general purpose" bit. Android isn't a general purpose OS, it was developed for small, specific purpose devices.

[scaryjim]

I'd say a tablet that can do web browsing, media playback, email, office applications, casual gaming, audio recording etc. is pretty general purpose. It certainly isn't specific-purpose, which is the only other viable alternative description I can see. I didn't skip over it, I mentioned a variety of different purposes for which you can use a tablet. I thought it was pretty self evident from that a tablet was general purpose, tbh.

Yes, that definition is hopelessly out of date, because when it was written it was a new concept that you didn't need years of training to use a computer. It was all punch cards and ticker tape and the programmers, users and operators of computers were three distinct sets of people, none of whom necessarily knew how to do any of the other tasks. But it's the definition you chose to use, so you need to make a compelling argument for why tablets don't fit within it. And so far you've made a stretch about the definition implying that users should be able to program the device (which it doesn't), and you've made a stretch about tablets not being general purpose (which they are). So far you haven't made any compelling argument that supports your position at all.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that I think tablets definitely should be counted as PCs. My case is that they have a number of clear similarities to PCs which makes trends in tablet sales a potenital indicator of where the PC market may move. I am simply arguing against your insistance that:

Tablets? They're not PCs, not even close.

Surely you can see that tablets have all the main features mentioned in your definition of PC? So I fail to see how you can defend the position that "They're ... not even close" to PCs...

[aidanjt]

The main features I mentioned include a self-hosting toolchain. When tablets are able to compile their own programmes, then they'll be general purpose. Having a few different programmes installed doesn't make it GP by computing standards. And you can't just redefine a standard when it suits you (or to win an online debate).

[scaryjim]

The main features I mentioned include a self-hosting toolchain. When tablets are able to compile their own programmes, then they'll be general purpose. Having a few different programmes installed doesn't make it GP by computing standards. And you can't just redefine a standard when it suits you (or to win an online debate).

The definition you quoted said nothing about a self-hosting tool chain and being able to compile software on the platform. So I think it's a bit rich for you to be talking about redefining a standard to win an argument

General purpose simply means having more than one purpose. It's the opposing counter-part to specific purpose. Just because we're talking about computers doesn't give either of those words, or the combination of them, a special meaning. Not being able to compile software on a device doesn't stop the device being general purpose. If you wish to add a self-hosting tool chain to the quoted definition, then fair enough: but that makes it a different definition (and also one that I personally don't agree with).

And even if we go with your (dubious) definition of general purpose, an Android tablet's "size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and [it] is intended to be operated directly by an end-user", which means it still fits the majority of the definition you chose to use in this argument. Again, I refer back to your "not even close", and struggle to see how you can justify it on that basis...

[aidanjt]

A computer user will apply application software to carry out a specific task. System software supports applications and provides common services such as memory management, network connectivity, or device drivers; all of which may be used by applications but which are not directly of interest to the end user. A simple, if imperfect analogy in the world of hardware would be the relationship of an electric light bulb (an application) to an electric power generation plant (a system). The power plant merely generates electricity, not itself of any real use until harnessed to an application like the electric light that performs a service that benefits the user.

Typical examples of software applications are word processors, spreadsheets, and media players. Multiple applications bundled together as a package are sometimes referred to as an application suite. Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org, which bundle together a word processor, a spreadsheet, and several other discrete applications, are typical examples. The separate applications in a suite usually have a user interface that has some commonality making it easier for the user to learn and use each application. And often they may have some capability to interact with each other in ways beneficial to the user. For example, a spreadsheet might be able to be embedded in a word processor document even though it had been created in the separate spreadsheet application.

End-user development tailors systems to meet the user's specific needs. User-written software include spreadsheet templates, word processor macros, scientific simulations, graphics and animation scripts. Even email filters are a kind of user software. Users create this software themselves and often overlook how important it is.

Development tools are, and always have been, a vital component of generalising and personalising a PC's application.

[scaryjim]

So you're saying that there's no end-user customisation possible on Android?

That quote is in no way related to your earlier argument. Nor does it in any way address my comments about your interpretation of general purpose. And you haven't commented at all on my suggestion that Android tablets are at least similar to PCs in a number of ways. And you're now talking about features of the software made available on a PC, and not about the characteristics of a PC itself. I'm losing track of what you're trying to say...

[aidanjt]

So you're saying that there's no end-user customisation possible on Android?

Where did I say that? End-user customisation, yes. But end-user development on it, no. It's not a PC if you must have 'another' PC to develop for it, any more than my router being a PC because I can wire up a serial terminal and develop for it on my desktop. That's just silly. It's designed purpose is to be a router, just as Android's designed purpose is to be a mobile communications platform. It can be made to do other things, but not by itself, any more than my router can (or should) host the tools to extend itself.

That quote is in no way related to your earlier argument.

Yes, it does. End-user development is a big part of what makes a PC a PC. That's exactly what I've been saying to you.

Nor does it in any way address my comments about your interpretation of general purpose.

I'd already addressed it before you made it. A GP computer can do virtually *anything*. By your definition of GP (more than one), a computer which can list directories and delete files could be classed as a GP computer, since it can now traverse directory hierarchies and remove files. Even adding a handful of commands still isn't sufficient to call a computer GP. A GP computer should have no systemic limitations on it's application.

And you haven't commented at all on my suggestion that Android tablets are at least similar to PCs in a number of ways.

I already did, a keyboard and a GUI doesn't make a PC. Similarity is not equality. I would even consider a virtual on-screen touch keyboard a valid input device, btw, so it's not even that as far as I'm concerned.

And you're now talking about features of the software made available on a PC, and not about the characteristics of a PC itself. I'm losing track of what you're trying to say...

A cc isn't just a feature of the software, it's a tool required by the platform. Things like templates and macros are merely a user-friendly version of that paradigm. But with the same applicable intent. To provide the machine with the capacity to generalise and personalise the users operation of the computer. Similarly, I don't consider multitasking to be a particularly PCish feature, time-shared execution of programmes is a non-feature of the PC. Just one which we happen to have grown accustomed to.

Basically, a PC should be thought of as a mainframe, only small and cheap enough for a single person to own and operate by themselves as they see fit.

[scaryjim]

tbh I'm still finding it hard to follow your train of thought, but it essentially seems to be that until you can create some form of program for a device on that device it doesn't count as a PC. As I said earlier, I'm far from convinced by that argument, but if that's essentially your point then fair enough, that's your POV.

So what counts? If I write an application in pure HTML and Javascript it'll run on my android tab. I can do that in an ordinary text editor, and there's plenty of those available on Android. Is my Android tab suddenly a PC because I can extent its functionality by writing programs on it? Suppose somone writes a javac for Android so you can compile code directly on your device (a few people appear to be working on this at the minute) - is it suddenly a PC? And if not, why not? And if having a particular piece of software suddenly makes it a PC, doesn't that seem a little disingenuous? The device itself hasn't changed from one minute to the next, so how come one minute it's something else and the next minute it's a PC?

It seems to me that the line is a lot blurrier than you make out, and that an Android tab is a lot closer to being a PC than you want to think...

[aidanjt]

I realise the line has been blurring for awhile now, but I don't think it has crossed into PC territory just yet. What would count? I don't know exactly, I suppose a development environment that provides a turing complete machine (even virtual) will do. Although ideally the ability to build and run native binaries would solidify its position as a PC.

Anyway, beyond this, we'll have to agree to disagree.