As the Cloud Rolls In

Based on the Hype Cycle chart they recently published (thank you virtualization.info for pointing this out), the oracles at Gartner are predicting that cloud computing will be mainstream in 2-to-5 years.  Did anyone else sort of have an "uhh, thanks for telling us something we don't know" reaction to this?  With all the cloud computing Kool-Aid Gartner serves us, I think pretty much anyone could've come up with that prediction. Side note: I'd be curious to know how much much of the hype around a given technology results from the steady stream of research and analysis coming out of Gartner...I bet Gartner doesn't factor that into their hype cycle. ;-)

So, sometime in the next few years, cloud computing is going to hit the "peak of inflated expectations" before stumbling down the "trough of disillusionment," a.k.a. the point where reality sets in and you realize that the technology is not the panacea to all your problems.  I think the hype cycle is based on pretty good logic, but I wonder if the progression is ever as linear as the chart suggests.  For example, I think many people might've considered that serious VMware bug from a couple of weeks ago as that first big dip down to disillusionment.  What if Amazon's EC2 was running on ESX?  That could've resulted in some extended downtime for the service.  Companies in heavily regulated industries or with lengthy uptake cycles are going to uncover more "cons" to cloud computing before they even get close to adopting it.

Nonetheless, the cloud is coming and will provide many benefits, such as greater capacity, flexibility and lower TCO.  But along with the hype over cloud computing, Web 2.0, and other Internet-based technologies, we've seen some bold predictions regarding the future of operating systems.  Of course, one of the boldest was from Gartner who warns us that Windows will "collapse" if Microsoft doesn't make major changes to it.  Not that I don't understand Gartner's reasoning, but isn't that like saying, "Microsoft, if you don't adapt your product to compete in the future marketplace, it will become obsolete."  No kidding!  Doesn't that go for any company and any product?  There are some pretty sharp folks at Gartner (if you ever have a chance to listen to a Gartner session at a conference, do so), but do they think Microsoft isn't aware of these issues?  I swear, Google couldn't ask for better publicity...  But anyway, that's a discussion for another time.

I agree that the cloud and Internet-related developments are making operating systems seem less relevant.  One day, the majority of what you do on a computer might require just a browser and Internet connection.  But, while there have been a lot of predictions about the future of operating systems, what does this imply about the future of the "PC"?  Currently, we need PCs to run operating systems, which run applications.  The beefier the PC, the better the performance.  But as more apps are running in the cloud, the computing power for those apps is running in the cloud as well. 

So what does that mean for the PC?  If there are going to be drastic changes to operating systems, shouldn't there be drastic changes to PCs?  Of course, everyone's initial response is that we'll only need something like a thin client.  And, to some extent that might be true.  But thin clients aren't new.  Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy were pushing the idea of network computers back in the 90s.  Their problem was that they were pushing a bandwidth-heavy idea in the days of dial-up. 

But thin clients aren't really innovative.  If the cloud means that PCs no longer will need to run operating systems and applications as we know them now, that should open the door to for major changes to PC hardware.  The shift to smaller, multi-purposes devices like smart phones and PDAs is a good start, but those still involve the same computing paradigm just in a smaller, lighter form-factor.

I spotted solid-state drives and tablet PCs on the hype cycle--does anyone else feel that it's taken far too long for these technologies to reach the "slope of enlightenment" or mainstream use?  In some respects, maybe these technologies need the cloud before they can really take off.  For example, solid-state drives have to compete with the lower prices and massive sizes of mechanical drives.  But if storage moves to the cloud, maybe we won't need massive drives anymore.  Still, prices for solid-state drives remain high even though many drives are based on DRAM technology.  Same goes for tablet PCs and touch screen technology in general.  Memory might be failing me here, but the iPhone is one of the first devices I can think of that really has brought advanced touch screen technology to the masses.  This technology has been around since the 80s with plenty of uses for it: what's taken so long to make it affordable and more widely used?

Replacing my clunker PC with a thin client is nice, but the user experience is similar.  Abstracting the software from the hardware should give the industry more freedom to innovate on PC hardware.  One of the first areas for innovation is input devices.  Technologies like Microsoft Surface or even the Nintendo Wii represent dramatic changes in how users interact with computers.  If you want to see some really cool uses for the Wii, check out Johnny Lee's Wii Projects. 

You'll see surface computers on Gartner's hype cycle, but given the amount of time it's taken tablet PCs to become somewhat mainstream, I'm guessing it will be a while before these reach mainstream.  So, that's where I'm at: if we're going to talk about the cloud and radical changes in operating systems, there are corresponding implications to PC hardware.  We've seen smaller and lighter.  What's next?  Anyone want to place your bets now?

Follow Me on Twitter