Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It didn't work that well for everyone (except the established vendors), otherwise it wouldn't have taken the market by storm. Modularity is a good thing to have for innovation. If we're returning to "fixed sets", that probably signals the exploratory period is dying.

Anyway, "general computing" doesn't necessarily mean mixing and mashing hardware. But it definitely means executing arbitrary software with full control over installed hardware. The trend line here is definitely from "more" to "less" of "general computing". We've started with raw metal and hardware diagrams being included in the instruction manuals; then diagrams disappeared, CPUs gained abstraction layers - but it was still fine, computing-wise. But now we're in era of OSes and even CPUs limiting what users can do with them, and multiple parties owning various pieces of a computer, with nothing left to own for the user who actually buys the machine.




> Modularity is a good thing to have for innovation

Is it though? Apple has innovated a whole lot more with the non-modular Macs and iPads than any generic x86 vendor has managed in years and years.

Modularity means software has to be designed for the lowest common denominator. And that in turn means that there is nothing to gain by innovating in hardware, because the software won't support it anyway.

Somebody who controls every part of both hardware and software can innovate much more freely than you can in a modular market. x86 PCs have been stagnant for decades now.


It failed more due to mismanagement than anything else.


Modularity can be achieved via extension ports, just like my 16 bit machines had.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: