back to article The browser's resized future in a fragmented www world

"We should work toward a universal linked information system, in which generality and portability are more important than fancy graphics techniques and complex extra facilities." So wrote Tim Berners-Lee in a document 25 years ago on Wednesday that’s being celebrated as marking the birth date of the web. Berners-Lee never …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

T B-L

The man who gave us the web is now hell-bent on destroying it. So much for rendering on any device, you'll soon need to have proprietary plug-ins and if the software maker doesn't support your OS or device; well screw you then - go buy something new.

MS must be creaming their pants over this. The can bri...encourage software makers to alter the plug-ins and force users into a never-ending upgrade cycle. All because of T B-L.

"Fragmentation is hurting the PC and the browser, yes"

Yup, and T B-L is *ENCOURAGING* that fragmentation.

The web does not need DRM, T B-L. The web no longer needs you, unless you wake-up and actually embrace openness.

3
22
Anonymous Coward

TBL is MS!

It's a tricky choice, I can either listen to one of the VISIONARIES who started the web, or some ANONYMOUS internet BLOWHARD with a monster MS CHIP ON THEIR SHOULDER....

But that's unfair. Let us know exactly what global communications infrastructure you've created so we can really put this in context.

12
4
Silver badge

Re: TBL is MS!

Don't feed the trolls.

8
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: TBL is MS!

@AC - You know, I've never done a pop concert either but I can tell you when someone is off-key.

T B-L's support of DRM is going to kill the open web. Or perhaps you can explain to me how proprietary extensions that only run on some platforms is going to help the open web?

The web is only here BECAUSE OF OPEN STANDARDS. Anything less spells its ultimate demise.

@James 51 - No troll. DRM is anti-freedom, anti-openness, anti-user. It should not be encouraged.

9
1
Bronze badge
Pint

Re: TBL is MS!

"The web is only here BECAUSE OF OPEN STANDARDS. Anything less spells its ultimate demise."

Adobe could see this, so they've announced to concentrate more on HTML5 than Flash (even though there were more Flash enabled browsers than HTML5).

Microsoft could correctly see that the 'web would threaten the desktop, by making the OS irrelevant.

So they tried to their Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish tactic on the web with IE6*. Fortunately for us, Mozilla (and then Google) fought back.

Silverfox was a pathetic attempt to grab the web back to proprietary. Defeated, MS (now ditching the desktop) are desperately trying to catch up now, from the self inflicted strangle-hold it had on IE.

*IE4-6 killed Netscape (proprietary techs, bundling, predatory pricing), then moth-balled IE so the web didn't progress (since they there was nobody to compete with).

[I'm not anti-MS; just pro-computer]

I do believe DRM has a place, though. It's just that it's not currently being executed properly (so much so that people are pirating because of convenience, not price)

4
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: DRM

It doesn't matter how pointless and stupid DRM is, big companies want it so it's going to exist. TBL can't stop it. Anonymous internet blowhards can't either.

2
1
Silver badge

Re: TBL is MS!

>DRM is anti-freedom, anti-openness, anti-user. It should not be encouraged.

You've confused the current flawed and propriety implementations of DRM with the concept itself.

All T-B-L suggested was that if DRM is to be used, it should be cross-platform and sensibly implemented. Then content creators will have the freedom to choose whether to implement it, and users will be free to engage with it or not. The user may choose not to, in which case the content creator can choose to reassess their business model. Choice and freedom.

Most users are quite happy to pay for a DVD or Blu-ray. Most people consider their Netflix subscription to be fairly priced. If there is a legitimate way to watch paid-for protected content on a portable, off-line device, most users wouldn't have a problem with that either, as long as it is reliable, easy and device-agnostic. User friendly.

12
3
Silver badge

Re: TBL is MS!

I think his attitude is let’s have the least evil form of DRM and seems to be a pragmatic compromise in the face of corporate power. Ideally I’d get rid of DRM as it only reduces the experience for honest customers but that isn’t going to happen (unless people make it ‘happen’).

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: TBL is MS!

"All T-B-L suggested was that if DRM is to be used, it should be cross-platform and sensibly implemented. "

So T B-L is going to personally ensure that every DRM system is implemented on Windows, OS X, iOS, Android, Firefox OS, Tizen, Blackberry, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora.... is he? And on all supported versions now and in the future? No, of course he isn't. Some versions of Windows, OS X, iOS and Android will get implementations; nothing else. End of the open web.

"Most users are quite happy to pay for a DVD"

DRM media is MUCH less functional than a DVD, even with the shitty and pointless region lock. Even Blu-Ray is better. I can watch a DVD on any device I choose (after transcoding). I can watch is as often as I want, whenever I want until the disc dies. I can lend it to my friends. I can't do any of that with DRM infected media.

Watch it on PC? Pay (I'm OK with this)

Want to watch it on a tablet/phone/other? Pay again or be told to get stuffed.

Want to lend it to a friend? Get stuffed.

Want to watch it in a different country? Get stuffed.

Want to watch it in 5 years time? Get stuffed (either because it 'timed out' or the DRM servers are gone).

Want to watch it now? Get stuffed, it got deleted from your account. Get down on your knees and work some mouth magic to get it back (by which I mean, plead).

And, of course, trying to fix any of these problems (i.e. remove the DRM) will be dealt with as if it was one of the most heinous crimes known to man.

4
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: TBL is MS!

"I think his attitude is let’s have the least evil form of DRM and seems to be a pragmatic compromise in the face of corporate power."

Or he could have stuck to some principals and been a force for good.

Guess not.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: TBL is MS!

Once you unleash DRM you'll regret it. It won't be applied sensibly.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: TBL is MS!

It won't be cross platform though. It never will be since there are niche platforms that won't be supported.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: TBL is MS!

>So T B-L is going to personally ensure that every DRM system is implemented on Windows, OS X, iOS, Android, Firefox OS, Tizen, Blackberry, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora.... is he?

Look it up [that is the joy of the connected web]:

TBL was only ever talking about DRM in relation to an API in HTML 5 for discovering and using DRM systems.

The alternate situation is one in which content providers only release content through propriety applications that only run on a small number of OSs, such Windows, OSX, iOS and Android.

In real life, people are free to make agreements with each other. I can choose to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement. If I choose not to sign it, I accept that I won't get to see the interesting McGuffin that the other party might have shown me.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: TBL is MS!

>Once you unleash DRM you'll regret it. It won't be applied sensibly.

Er, last I looked DRM is already unleashed. Websites are already able to frustrate attempts to copy text (to check reviews of a product they are selling, for example). An example of silliness can be seen on the Currys site. Just try copying text from the webpage below:

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/clearance-photography-1902-commercial.html?intcmp=home~Camera-clearance~clearance~r4~half~c7~cp1902~070314

But hey, people are free to shop with someone else.

1
0
Bronze badge

web site DRM

I had no trouble at all copying the text off that web page. In Opera it was trivial. In Firefox a scroll to the end and a shift-click selected the text, no worries. Didn't bother trying other browsers. And you can always use the source, Luke.

If that's an example of DRM, we really have no problem.

-A.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: TBL is MS!

"Er, last I looked DRM is already unleashed."

So we should just bend over at take it?

0
0

Re: TBL is MS!

Copied fine on Firefox.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: TBL is MS!

Can't copy text from curry.co.uk on Chrome... Win 7 64. Fair enough- it was just that i was reading up on the pessimists views, and the inability to copy text was one of their fears. I'll try Curyys again with a difgferent browser tomorrow, when I'm sober.

Cherrs all

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: TBL is MS!

@Dave 126

I use spotify now and even though not all music is on there I couldn't be happier !!

So much easier than downloading tons of albums and storing them. I stopped the day i used spotify.

Would like the same for film please. And not just a small choice that is currently on offer. A proper film library, I get really annoyed when they let you watch jaws2 and jaws 1 is nowhere to be seen :/

If they can get the film industry to work as smooth as spotify I would stop pirating films.

Anon for obvious reasons

0
0
Anonymous Coward

re - "Fragmentation is hurting the PC and the browser, yes"

The IOS web browser is by far the worst one out there, maybe because there is no 30% Apple tax on the web.

Being a thorn in the side, the browser is surplus to corporate requirements.

4
3

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Re: re - "Fragmentation is hurting the PC and the browser, yes"

"no 30% Apple tax on the web."

What?

0
1
Silver badge

Re: re - "Fragmentation is hurting the PC and the browser, yes"

I think he means that apple can't charge 30% for accessing a website so they have produced browsers which are poor to the point that people will pay to avoid using it. Not having used the browser on an iphone I can't vouch one way or another for its quality.

3
1
Facepalm

Re: re - "Fragmentation is hurting the PC and the browser, yes"

"The IOS web browser is by far the worst one out there, maybe because there is no 30% Apple tax on the web."

Which is somewhat ironic as when the iPhone launched we were told that there were no plans for a native SDK, and that we could do everything we needed to in the browser, in JavaScript. But devs howled for a native SDK... be careful what you wish for!

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: re - "Fragmentation is hurting the PC and the browser, yes"

"The IOS web browser is by far the worst one out there"

Considering you don't even seem to know what "The IOS web browser" is called I can't really take you seriously.

Apple don't allow other browsers the same access to the rendering engine as Safari has, and lock down their usage so they can't improve their rendering speed much (it's why Firefox wont release an iOS version). This means Safari is the best web browser for iOS out there in terms of both quality of rendering pages and in terms of the speed it does that rendering!

Comparing Safari on my iPhone to Chrome on my old Android device the Safari one loads sites faster, has better "reading" support (the thing that translates pages from graphical to text only) as it prefetches the next pages so you just keep scrolling rather than having to navigate to the next page, and generally gives a better user experience.

But please tell us what obscure and rarely used feature of Chrome or Firefox are you talking about that Safari doesn't need and it's users don't care about.

1
1

Re: re - "Fragmentation is hurting the PC and the browser, yes"

I thought Safari was the desktop version of the browser. Oh wait, it's both? Oh man, how confusing! How would I distinguish between the two? Maybe I could call it "The iOS browser" to make it clear I'm on about the iPhone version of Safari, not the OS X version. Oh crap no, that would totally invalidate all of my arguments instantaneously!

4
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: re - "Fragmentation is hurting the PC and the browser, yes"

@DanDanDan

Saying "the iOS Browser" could mean Opera, Chrome or Safari (all 3 available on iOS), use you big boy words and call it "Safari for iOS" if you really want to be clear. But you don't want to be clear, or provide a valid argument, you just want to write uninformed uncited crap just to get a reaction from people like me.

2
1
WTF?

browser restrictions

"Apple don't allow other browsers the same access to the rendering engine as Safari has, and lock down their usage so they can't improve their rendering speed much (it's why Firefox wont release an iOS version). This means Safari is the best web browser for iOS out there in terms of both quality of rendering pages and in terms of the speed it does that rendering!"

I hadn't realised Apple were that restrictive. Does that not count as restrictive anti-competitive practise...the sort of thing that gets companies sued?

1
0
LDS
Silver badge

Re: browser restrictions

Only if your Microsoft. If you Apple you're a saint company working hard to light the dark, poor souls of users, and thereby it's allowed anything, including a closed store which can refuse applications competiting with its own (think what would have happened if Microsoft refused OpenOffice to run on Windows...) , keeping API restricted to its very own apps (MS was forced to open its Windows API....) - of course for "security reason", not to keep competition away (after all the NSA spies on your for your security too, right?), ask a 30% fee on every app you sell, keep its browser locked down (Microsoft was fined even if you could install and use whatever browser you liked, just because IE was preinstalled!) and so on. It's the classic streotype, if you look ugly you're surealy bad, if you look handsome you can't be bad, you're surely good... and that's how conmen work.

4
1
Bronze badge

Re: browser restrictions

*How* does iOS stop non-Safari applications accessing the rendering engine. If an application calls render_page("I am Safari, honest guv", *page_to_render) how does the renderer know that this isn't Safari making exactly the same call?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: re - "Fragmentation is hurting the PC and the browser, yes"

>The IOS web browser is by far the worst one out there, maybe because there is no 30% Apple tax on the web.

Websites, say IMDB or eBay, release free apps. Hold on a moment whilst I do the maths... 30% of $0.00 is... lets see now... um... yep, I got it: $0.00. What figure did you arrive at AC?

What is irritating is that number of websites that throw up a 'Install our app!' when accessed through a mobile browser... but this annoyance is common to both iOS and Android.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: browser restrictions

"Only if your Microsoft."

Or more accurately: only if you have a monopoly to abuse.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: browser restrictions

"Or more accurately: only if you have a monopoly to abuse."

MS isn't a monopoly - they only have around 20% of the market.

Google, now there's a monopoly.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: re - "Fragmentation is hurting the PC and the browser, yes"

Developer licence fees, which are about £89 a year.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: browser restrictions

"*How* does iOS stop non-Safari applications accessing the rendering engine. If an application calls render_page("I am Safari, honest guv", *page_to_render) how does the renderer know that this isn't Safari making exactly the same call?"

It's mainly related to the way Javascript is handled. 3rd party apps have to use UIWebView only where as Safari has access to Apples Nitro Engine (which is a lot faster) and they aren't allowed to use their own version so can't change or even tweak how it handles JS. If they don't follow the rules Apple don't allow the app on their store so most of them are stuck with have a poorer performing app.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: browser restrictions

"MS isn't a monopoly - they only have around 20% of the market."

Oh sorry, you must be new to the industry. The bundling of IE was with Windows... which was a desktop operating system (current market share of ~90%). For the desktop, they had a monopoly and they abused it.

Only 6%[1] of smartphones are Windows, accounting for less than 1% total web browsing[2]. So I'll give you that one - no monopoly there.

"Google, now there's a monopoly."

Of...?

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system#Market_share

[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients

1
1
Bronze badge

Re: browser restrictions

MS had a browser monopoly

Emphasis on HAD. Their share is down to 10% now

They've lost out to Chrome

Personally IE is my favourite browser... for downloading chrome

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: browser restrictions

"Oh sorry, you must be new to the industry"

Nope, but I know that MS only has a 20% share of the computer OS market. Which is more than you appear to know. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/13/windows_market_share_just_20percent/

"For the desktop, they had a monopoly and they abused it."

Please note your own use of the past tense. MS's share of the OS market when it pertains to downloading is further diluted by the third-party browsers many install. If we were talking solely about desktop usage, you may have a point; but as we're not, you don't.

"Only 6%[1] of smartphones are Windows, accounting for less than 1% total web browsing[2]. So I'll give you that one - no monopoly there."

And as this debate is about mobile apps, that's an even more pertinent figure. MS can't abuse something they don't have. So now you contradict your own statement.

""Google, now there's a monopoly."

Of...?"

Are you aware of who writes Android? It's a company called "Google". You may have heard of them. They also have a monopoly on web search, a large slice of the Internet advertising market, mapping and various other service; heck they're even becoming an ISP. All of these they tie together in their OS which, by your own link, has most of the smartphone market.

So tell me, who has what to abuse?

1
1
Bronze badge
WTF?

Re: browser restrictions

"Nope, but I know that MS only has a 20% share of the computer OS market."

Hmm.. who are you trying to con? Are you serious?

MS offer users a choice of browser because they abused their monopoly in the PC market. That's what the issue is.. desktop.. Not computers in general or devices, end points, or anything else with a chip.

That is why Microsoft offer a choice of browser in the EU, and why Apple, Google, or anyone else are able to bundle their own on their OS. You know that very well.

Ask most experienced web-developers and they will assert that IE has been a hindrance to the adoption and progression of the WWW due to the fact devs are restricted because of dreadful support in IE.

Only now is IE becoming viable because MS have been forced to compete fairly! Competition is a good thing; it's made IE better for you!

As for your OT problem with Google:

Android certainly is the dominant mobile OS, at 64% (including Android without Google services) - but not quite a monopoly. Search is <70% - dominant, but not a monopoly.

The way Google are behaving in a different market doesn't discount the fact that Microsoft abused their >90% PC OS market share.

But you know all that anyway, don't you?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Gone are the days when the browser was a platform the vendor controlled – a vendor which forced you to trade certain freedoms to simply view or consume the web.

Still happening, only things are now called "free" where in reality you are paying with your privacy.

2
2
Bronze badge

You're talking about £0 free. You can't get something for nothing, there has to be something in return otherwise people wouldn't be able to provide these "free" services.

Either get out your wallet, or provide some personal data.

0
3
Silver badge

From the article, and given in the context of how native apps came to be:

"Native is on a run for two reasons: one, because the app writers were ordered to do so by the app store owners or phone makers and there was too much at stake in saying "no". Two: because tuning the app to the hardware ensured the app performed beautifully and without any crashes."

This is simply not a true reflection as to why native apps came about. The author has totally forgotten (or wasn't aware in the first place) when the iPhone first introduced apps, there was an equal emphasis on creating web apps (apps accessed via an icon off the home page but that are rendered by the browser) as native apps. At the first iOS WWDC (before it was called iOS) half the sessions were dedicated to how to produce web apps that would render well on the device. There was reams of documentation on how to do it. Apple changed their emphasis only after developers voted with their feet. The web app sessions were unpopular and the web app documentation on the Apple developer portal went unread. For a certain section of the computing press it's an easy assumption to make; that Apple conspired to promote the native app and suppress HTML (it plays well to the gallery) but that simply doesn't match the history of what happened. Indeed Apple firmly believed the first iOS Safari browser was a wonder of mobile computing that developers would love to leverage (and at that point in time it was) but developers still preferred native. It is undoubtedly fair to say Apple fairly quickly cottoned on to the fact web apps weren't enthusiastically embraced and quickly saw the strategic advantage of native apps and changed emphasis, however that change was a direct reaction to developer preference, not the result of a nefarious master plan to undermine the web hatched with the inception of the iPhone.

1
0
Silver badge

"Either get out your wallet, or provide some personal data."

So when Google and Facebook sucked-up my personal contact details through ingesting the contact databases of colleagues I know, was that because I personally failed to get out my wallet?

When Google photograph my garden because of the height of the camera in their Google maps car, is that because I personally am failing to get out my wallet?

When they slurped wi-fi data and then lied to government by claiming it was not a management sanctioned activity, when it was, was that also because I personally failed to get out my wallet.

When Google produce a maps app with no option to pay and which doesn't function well unless you log in, and then link my movements and build a personal profile about my person and do their level best to link it all with web site browsing data from entirely different contexts, is that because I am failing to get out my wallet?

When I run a commercially valuable project in competition with a Google service and then find for practical reasons, I have to give-up and allow correspondence with contractors, suppliers etc who are using Google mail accounts (or spend my time "King Canute" like, policing all correspondence and insisting Google Mail users use an alternative) and Google are entirely able and free to read about the internal status of my project, is that also because I have failed to open my wallet?

Your assertion is a an ignorant simplification that wholly ignores the dynamic whereby the end user is finding it more and more difficult to exercise choice, and is being parcelled up to be sold as food at the Google trade restaurant.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

I think you missed the original point that was probably being made.

But it's funny how someone's throw-away comment ends up being responded to by someone throwing dirt at a competitor of a company who they're a loving customer of.

So when Google and Facebook sucked-up my personal contact details through ingesting the contact databases of colleagues I know, was that because I personally failed to get out my wallet?

No, because your collegues put your personal contact details on their Google/Facebook accounts?

Reality check: Google and Facebook aren't going to call you!

When Google photograph my garden because of the height of the camera in their Google maps car, is that because I personally am failing to get out my wallet?

Who cares? Anyone can do that! If you have a problem with that then report it to google, or call the police, build a bigger wall, or stop gardening in your Y-fronts.

You've ignored the advantages of the service that they provide (for £0), such as viewing properties, working out how to get to an interview, confirming the sea-front view of the hotel you're about to book, historical records, etc...

I guess you've never used streetview, then.

But... GASP! HORRORS! Everyone in the world can look at the outside of your house!! Instead of the public peaking their head over your fence to check you out... they can see the dog shit in your garden from the comfort of their homes!!

Reality check: Nobody cares about you! Not even Google.

When they slurped wi-fi data and then lied to government by claiming it was not a management sanctioned activity, when it was, was that also because I personally failed to get out my wallet.

That was unlawful - not defending law breaking, but they've captured information that your wireless router is freely broadcasting... so fucking what?

Reality check: Who really gives a shit what your SSID is?

When Google produce a maps app with no option to pay and which doesn't function well unless you log in, and then link my movements and build a personal profile about my person and do their level best to link it all with web site browsing data from entirely different contexts, is that because I am failing to get out my wallet?

It's your choice to use such an app. Google gather your "web site browsing data" in order to accurately predict the type of adverts you might be interested in.

I guess you've never advertised a product, and wasted £1000's due to lack of targeting. And as a consumer, isn't it a good thing to be shown adverts of products that you might actually be interested in?

And what about store loyalty cards? Many of us use them.. we get free stuff in return for the shops knowing our favourite flavour of milk shake. But that's ok.. it's not Google.

Reality check: Google don't personally give a shit about your favourite sites - People make products, and they need to advertise them efficiently.

When I run a commercially valuable project in competition with a Google service and then find for practical reasons, I have to give-up and allow correspondence with contractors, suppliers etc who are using Google mail accounts (or spend my time "King Canute" like, policing all correspondence and insisting Google Mail users use an alternative) and Google are entirely able and free to read about the internal status of my project, is that also because I have failed to open my wallet?

That's one of the disadvantages of using 3rd party email services. ANYONE can read the data on their own servers, not just Google - you didn't know that?

Nobody at Google is interested in reading your emails! They get millions of emails each day, they can't hire that many people to read through everyone's emails.. or is it just yours they're interested in?

Reality check: A computer reads your emails and advertises products related to that. It's a fucking machine!

Your assertion is a an ignorant simplification that wholly ignores the dynamic whereby the end user is finding it more and more difficult to exercise choice, and is being parcelled up to be sold as food at the Google trade restaurant.

We're all victims of that - long before Google was around.

I'm out to defend Google, I don't like or hate them. I think you all need to get a bit of perspective.

So CompanyA competes with the company that you've committed to, and love ... So Fucking What? Get a grip of reality!

0
2
Silver badge

Oh dear, another commentard who has no clear appreciation of the difference between secret and private. When in the middle of a dinner party, I go to the loo and lock the door, it's not a secret what I'm doing. I'm not trying to cover my tracks. I don't think anyone particularly cares or finds value in being able to look at me on the throne. But it is, nevertheless private, and no one else's business. So every one of your points along the lines "no one cares," so therefore "get over yourself, privacy is irrelevant" is a straw man argument. Attempting to paint me and others who argue for privacy like me as egotists entirely misses the point. I don't think anyone cares what I'm doing in my front-room this evening, but I certainly don't want to live in a world where any fool can just wander in, sit down and start watching.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

So now it's gone from seeing your back garden, to watching you curl one off during a dinner party and walking into your house?

Big difference... that was kind of my point. The privacy "invasion" you had is insignificant and was already publicly available.

(Maybe not you, nor me, but people in general blast all sorts of personal crap on Facebook for the world to know. Us geeks are a minority in this)

0
0
Silver badge

Er what?

Browsers are dead - it's all native apps?

Bollocks.

I hardly ever use native apps, because, lets be honest, the hugely massively vast majority of websites out there need a browser to view them. It would be insane to expect every website to have their own native app.

Or have I completely got the wrong end of the stick?

18
1
Bronze badge

Re: Er what?

I tend to agree with you. Most people seem to get a Smart-phone, download loads of programs and then gradually stop using them as the novelty wears off. True enough, some keep getting used but I don't think it's quite as bigger use as certain groups would have us believe.

Perhaps another threat to the open Web is Facebook. Some Facebook nutters hardly look at the rest of the Web at all and I've seen that some shops only advertise their Facebook page. It reminds me of Compuserve from years ago.

8
1
Silver badge

Re: Er what?

Compuserve, wasn't that buried under a crossroads with a stake throguh its heart?

0
0
Boffin

Re: Er what?

No - right end of the stick. This is just another of those tech writer apocalyptic stories where they take a couple of out of context statistics (the raw quantity of data connections from mobile devices is about as meaningless a figure as you get) and predict the end of something (although this guy hedged his bets right at the end there) while giving an inaccurate pocket history of something familiar to build in a flavour of historical inevitability (which still sells quite well - the marxist fantasy seems to have a longer shelf life than its obit writers give it credit for).

4
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums