Dear Blick, X-Air, Weatheraardvark, Reinhard, Felix and WeatherCat technology observers,
Edouard, my friend, it pains me to see you suffer so needlessly with every technology change from Apple. All of your problems will go away if you just give in to the dark side of the force and return to Micro$oft Windoze, where they are still trying to find a worthy successor to DOS. 
Well Microshaft hasn't been sitting on their laurels. They are also trying to reinvent the PC in surprising ways. Microsoft unveiled this week a new PC called Surface Studio.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-studioThere is a ComputerWorld article that claims Google, Apple, and Microsoft just "saved" the PC with this sort of technology:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3136710/windows-pcs/how-google-apple-and-microsoft-just-saved-the-pc.htmlAlas, I couldn't disagree more with the author and on the contrary he proves my points in disturbing ways. For starters what is "killing" both the PC and the Mac is that they have become
way too difficult to maintain. Without touching the user interface, what Apple and Microsoft should be working on is trying to make things easier "under the hood." Just as an example, a personal computer should have a completely bullet-proof and very easy to use backup system. Setting up Time Machine is already asking a lot of many users and implementing the
"DFW signature" backup strategy is beyond 90% of computer users.
However my gripe really comes into focus when you compare Apple's Touch Bar with Microsoft's Surface Studio. They are radically different approaches to bringing the sort of tactile user-interface from mobile devices to the personal computer. So which should prevail?
My fear is two fold. First, the marketplace isn't always the best way to determine the best technology. There are lots of factors that influence why a technology is ultimately adopted and sometimes the best design loses out. For example, it is now commonly believed that Betamax was the better VCR form than VHS, but VHS won because of temporary conveniences. When it comes to user-interface, it is really important that the better system be adopted.
That brings me to concern #2. There is something desperately needed in user-interfaces and that is standardization. Just as we need a common language, customs, and conventions like driving on the right side of the road, the same is true of Information Technology. It is fine to have cars that use gasoline, diesel and electric power plants, but it would not be okay if you had to learn to drive all over every time you bought a new car. Could someone with a new MacBook with the Touch Bar walk over to the Microsoft Surface Studio and have any idea how to use it?
Since my days as an academic, I've seen a looming problem that has received very little attention as far as I know:
where is the boundary between technology and shared culture? Returning to the car example, auto makers are free to make all the innovations they please so long as we don't have to learn how to drive all over again. The Touch Bar does require learning again how to interact with the computer and Surface Studio is an even more extreme example. The silicon valley has an right an obligation to innovate, but they have a social contract to respect the culture of those who depend on that technology in order to express themselves. It is something like the problem with Apple trying to replace the hand gun emoji with a water pistol but on steroids.
Perhaps we do need a transformation of the PC user-interface into one that involves direct contact of the screen (perhaps not.) I really don't think it is the most pressing problem needed to keep the PC vibrant in our techno-culture. Nonetheless, the process by which this transformation occurs should not be a naked battle of techno-giants. Such a process would not serve the very people upon whom their profits come from - the ordinary consumer.
There are only two solutions and neither seems likely at the moment. Instead of a battle over propriety technology, the large technology companies should accept that reasonable standards are needed for this new technology and voluntarily create a trade organization that would work with say academia, government, consumer groups and so on, so that this new technology would be uniform enough that the average user would be comfortable with it. The alternative is that angry consumers would call upon the government to get involved to straighten out the chaos.
Sadly what seems all to clear is that all the major silicon valley companies behaving like sophomores when they should be demonstrating that they truly possess wisdom about the innovations they are trying to shove down our throats. There is saying from one of the Murphy's law books that hits the nail on the head:
Society is like a mule, not a car, if pressed too hard it will bolt and throw off its rider!Those in the silicon valley should learn from such earthy wisdom lest they would end up getting thrown down into that very earth!
Cheers, Edouard
