I find it strange that people don't count devices with touch screens as personal computers, even if they are personal. I always understood the 'personal' so that I'm in control of that device. So any general purpose computer where developers can distribute directly to consumers is a PC.
If a device allows accessible app sideloading, you can install software on it at will and use your device in any way you want. And that's my definition of a personal computer.
Devices running desktop windows or OS X are PCs to me. As are most Android based tablets and smartphones.
Am I right that most of you define the term differently? Because by my definition, the PC is doing very well. It's certainly under attack (windows phone 7, metro, iOS etc). But it's doing very well.
The truth of the statement in the OP depends on the vague definition of a 'personal computer' used. There is only an artificial difference: what kind of input/output is used. But what if you connect a monitor and a bluetooth keyboard to your (rooted?) Android phone? Instant Linux box.
There is a very large grey area in between which is generally left out. What about laptops? netbooks? laptops with touch screens? Pads with detachable keyboards? Are those "personal computers"?
"General purpose personal computation devices" will live.
The definition of a personal computer is probably a topic that could be endlessly debated. I would personally classify it as a general purpose computer that the user can program, so why not a phone running (non crippled) Linux?
Once you can run your own native code on the thing the differences are down to factors like software ecosystem, hardware performance and input mechanism, but the potential is there.
Exactly. Hardware (CPU/GPU) performance of current phones is on par with "desktop PCs" of only a few years back, so I would even count that one out. It's fast enough, and they're catching up.
You're definitely right about the ambiguity of the term "personal computer." The OS X adverts of Macs vs. PCs have always seemed a bit silly to me -- after all, a Mac is a personal computer, right?
Unfortunately, manufacturers are trying to take the control of devices away from their users. The vast majority of users don't notice and/or don't care. I think it's a problem, but maybe (hopefully?) I'm wrong.
I think the bigger issue, which I don't see raised in the article (apologies if I missed it) is that PCs are cheap. That's a lot of what I wrote about in http://jseliger.com/2011/10/09/desktop-pcs-arent-going-anywh... . In addition, if you're someone who mostly uses a computer for reading e-mail, looking at FB, and watching YouTube videos, practically any computer made in the last five to maybe ten years will be just fine for what you're doing. So why would you buy a new one?
Besides, tablets which are pretty much in the same range as Netbooks are nicer for all of these activities, and with better battery life. Though writing emails isn't as comfortable.
My 4 years old computer still runs very well. I can also run newest pc games without problems. My video card relative power with the newest generation of console hasn't changed. I don't see why I would buy a new PC.
While PC sales might trend downward, I'm pretty sure that pc use is not.
Intel is still going to be selling semiconductors whether people buy PCs or smartphones, but the reality is the price of the average processor someone is buying for use in their primary "computer" has been declining fast - Intel and anyone else in the game is going to need to make up the money in volume instead
This article focused on hardware. The more interesting trend is in desktop software -- nobody is making it anymore.
Microsoft has so succesfully strangled the life out of the software industry that it is now a wasteland. Today, all games are for consoles, all mini-games are iphone games, all enterprise software is moving to the cloud, all productivity software is written as web services....
>Today, all games are for consoles, all mini-games are iphone games
Then I guess I've been living in some fantasy world with Starcraft II, Diablo 3 beta and new games every week at Kongregate. I like it though, so please don't wake me up. I can barely even imagine an RTS on a console and I don't think it would be worthy of even playing let alone watching e-sports casts of others play!
The consoles and iOS are great game targets because they are standard (consoles) or have a limited variation set (iOS). I see a lot more software every day in the Mac App store, and verticals are still more PC than any online version.
My Mac mini doesn't have an optical media drive and I bought a super drive to go with it but I admit, I hardly use it (just for ripping my audio CDs into iTunes and some photo backups).
When the internet speeds are fast downloading becomes the easiest option.
If a device allows accessible app sideloading, you can install software on it at will and use your device in any way you want. And that's my definition of a personal computer.
Devices running desktop windows or OS X are PCs to me. As are most Android based tablets and smartphones.
Am I right that most of you define the term differently? Because by my definition, the PC is doing very well. It's certainly under attack (windows phone 7, metro, iOS etc). But it's doing very well.