Hacker News Reader

If the hardware has the capability of doing all my calculations locally, then why would I want to do it all remotely and just receive a rendered interface? So that I can have the "added convenience" of having my software unavailable during the occasional network outage? And the pleasure of network latency, even when there isn't an outage?

View on HN

Who says you'll have a choice?

This is why plain text matters.

"Choice" can mean two things.

1. The vendor has a choice of what they offer me. They can decide to offer only networked, for-rent versions. That's their choice.

2. I have a choice what I purchase or rent. I can decide to only buy (not rent) software that resides on my own machines. That's my choice.

They can pursue a direction that I don't want if they choose to. I can still choose not to go along.

What's being suggested here is that most vendors would only offer networked solutions and you wouldn't have enough options to exercise your choice.

We've gradually been having control of the software we use wrestled away from us.

The (unfortunate) idea is that network latency will be low enough, and rendered interfaces will be good enough, that companies can make "streaming software" a compelling enough experience for the masses, to the point where it becomes normalised.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com