Hacker News Reader

Comment by pyre | Hacker News Reader

I view it as an apples to oranges comparison, because you are comparing a fixed cost with a variable cost.

Why should I pay $40-$50/month for home Internet and just to pay another $50/month for 3G Internet (which isn't even 'everywhere Internet' because it only covers certain areas; metropolitan areas better than rural obviously)? Keep in mind that these are monthly costs, not fixed costs.

> Times change. Technology marches on. You can't always do the same thing forever.

Things aren't always better just by virtue of being new.

View on HN

Why should you? Because you want the advantages that doing so brings.

Why shouldn't you? Because you don't want the advantages that doing so brings.

But it's expensive! So make the decision more carefully.

But I want it to be cheaper! And?

Sorry, I'm not being cranky because I think that WebApps shouldn't exist at all. I'm being cranky at the notion that running things locally at all is 'old fashioned' and that at some point in the near future all of humanity will toss out locally run apps in favor of doing everything 100% in the cloud.

It really annoys me when people seem to assume that 24/7 Internet connectivity is a given, and something that every single American has right now ('has' as in 'really has' not as in 'has access to if they want it').

Most people already have. Look at what most people run on their computers - browser, email first and foremost.

24/7 internet connectivity will be a certainty in the future. We'll have complete global coverage. You'll be diving and able to tweet. You'll be checking facebook on that space shuttle.

The idea that everyone needs a large computer with a lot of horse power is outdated. And the hassle that comes with is not something people want - lost data, viruses, maintainence, etc.

People want small 'appliances' that connect them to their data and applications in the cloud. They have spoken. That's what they want.

> Most people already have.

For varying definitions of most. People living in Silicon Valley and/or San Francisco and spending all of their time with other techies have a skewed perspective of how many people out there actually have access to 24/7 Internet. I'm not talking about a broadband connection vs dial-up here. I'm talking about an Internet connection no matter where you are (which 3G only brings you if you live in urban areas... as long as you don't hit a deadzone or a tower that's congested... ).

And even we privileged techies sometimes have to take our phones into the subway or onto a plane.

"24/7 internet connectivity will be a certainty in the future. We'll have complete global coverage. You'll be diving and able to tweet. You'll be checking facebook on that space shuttle."

I question that, or, at least, I question that the quality of coverage will be in the same class everywhere. More likely, coverage will be better in wealthy areas, and not so good—and more expensive—in the poorer ones. So will running networked applications be viable in the poorer areas? It depends on the app and how network intensive it is. The optimism about network apps, everywhereallthetime, has optimism about infrastructure catching up implicit in it, and (for reasons beyond the scope of a deeply nested comment) I don't share that optimism.

"It really annoys me when people seem to assume that 24/7 Internet connectivity is a given, and something that every single American has right now "

I don't think here's anyone out there who assume that.It's just that some people decide to target only those that do. You're complaining about being left out of the new stuff while at the same time refusing to adopt the new stuff. If you want to continue working with your local software fine, nobody is stopping you. You just sound like a whiner when you go 'oh I want to stay at the forefront of technology, but I don't like where that is, whaa it's so unfair'.

Every decision has costs and benefits. It doesnt matter if it's fixed or variable, the equation is he same. A smartphone with 3g has been life-changing to me. I'm actually replying to you on mine while waiting for my friends to finish what they're doing.

You're right, new is not always better. But neither is old. Maybe you wouldn't get the same utility out of things. That's fine. But I'm certainly glad that more applications are cloud-based. It means ill actually use them.

> Every decision has costs and benefits.

I respect people's right to make decisions. My issue is with the idea that 100% of computing will be done 'in the cloud' in the future. In this case, my decision isn't, "Do I want to use cloud-services and always-connect-Internet?" The decision becomes, "Do I want to compute at all?"

Assuming your home has 3G coverage, you could just have 3G. For some people, this is already cheaper (especially with pre-paid options). This is situation only going to get better. [I'm going by Australian prices]

Is 3G less reliable than fixed line? I don't know - but networks in general aren't always available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_Distributed_Comput...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com