Microsoft has for years tried to get into mobile devices. Here you see Bill Gates really uncomfortable with the notion that Apple has succeeded more than Microsoft in this space. He is not wrong, since for a time Windows phones and tablets were the only ones out there, while Apple’s Newton was forgotten memory. Those devices either used a slightly modified Windows OS or one that copied all of its metaphors. The latest Windows phones are an exception, but with Windows 8, it will no longer be. It cannot be disputed that there are important applications that do not exist on mobile devices (currently), and therefore mobile devices are not complete (currently). So people argue that mobile devices will be full-fledged computers or desktops will not die. The idea of a dual interface seems to be aimed in this direction. However, a third possibility exists. Applications, after all, merely solve real life problems. They are not themselves holy. If there were a different way of accomplishing the same things, the applications could be replaced. One could argue that data is the rather more holy object. Back to this later.

While devices are converging, it becomes a question of what the hardware distribution of the future will look like, and how functions will be partitioned among them. In this video, Steve Jobs posits a rather linear, functional view of computing history, where things moved from desktops to more mobile devices as usage functions evolved from scientific and office work to entertainment and socializing. Bill Gates posits a more encompassing and parasitic view, seeing computing power spreading to colonize all niches, a niche for each device, none really going away. To him, the kind of space or niche makes a difference, like whether a device fits in a pocket or not.

What they are both getting at is that there are constraints — some hardware, some social convention — that limit what functions can be used where. Because if it were at all possible, why wouldn’t one want all functions on all devices? But there are power, weight, screen-size, and input device constraints that are fundamental. Given that, you can’t possibly have all applications run in all devices.

To address this, one way is to have all devices become one device — a hardware solution along with its companion software like Windows 8. This “classic” solution has existed quite a while now, e.g. convertible laptops, some better than others. The problem is in both hardware and software. The equivalent tethered power and heavy-case computing power cannot be had with mobility at any given time, even though mobile devices are more powerful than computers of even a few years ago. And the software interface is also different — requiring a stylus for mouse-like precision (although I like the stylus, it’s one more thing to hold). With Windows 8, the interface problem maybe is solved, but the hardware problem remains. There is talk of some dual-part computer where you can remove a light (both weight and CPU power) piece of it. The non-mobile base of such a computer would have additional processing capabilities as well as keyboard and mouse like a standard docking station. The hardware design for this though, would be enormously complicated if it were to be efficient. For example, two processors separated a great physical distance, does not make for good communication speed. Either that, or when the light piece is docked, its own capabilities are totally disabled for its trivial contribution to total computing power. This would be a waste of hardware and the cost would be even greater than a tablet and a separate non-mobile computer combined.

So what about another way. Forget combining all devices into one device — in hardware. Why not have all these devices, and even let them run all their vastly different applications and interfaces at vastly different processing capabilities, but combine them at the level of data? Given the constraints of the devices, people will write any and all applications that support functions natural to them — we need not worry about that. We only care that these applications can access a common set of data and have seamless sync’ing between them. This also has a buzzword already, it’s called cloud computing. Yet I don’t think it’s about migrating applications to the cloud — not so, although some of that will take place, for “light” applications (light on bandwidth and computation). The full power of each device though, is going to harnessed, I am sure of that. So the best gains from the cloud is data sync’ing. This is a problem not merely of sync’ing, but of a method to record data in a way that is universally available regardless of software or hardware platform. It’s not just document data, but things like preferences, and program states. And I’m not talking about applications that are simple and entertainment-like or applications already on the web for which devices are only terminals. Furthermore, this “cloud” doesn’t even need to be an internet company, it can be managed among the devices themselves or by any mostly-on device that is at a common locus of interaction, like a “cloud server” or some such in the home. I think this is the more likely future, because it makes more sense.

The nice thing about these input devices is that they don’t require anything special in terms of hardware — maybe a duplicity of some parts, but not expensive ones — all the smarts are in software. This can only mean two things: the devices will get smarter and smarter as time goes on, and, they will (soon) become standard parts of computers (and indeed, all devices), enabling a new field of naturally human-interactive applications. Definitely something to look forward to.

So Google has the ideas. Microsoft has the delivery mechanism in the form of the installed base and the ready platform with the ability to propogate via a simple update. Apple has the hardware designs and marketing to get people to adopt. Yet, each is missing the critical pieces held by others. And so we stall in Year 2009 as each company tries to replicate some existing thing that another company is already good at.

(This very good article gives too much credit to Google, I believe. The situation is a lot more symmetrical and Google should not be elevated to a privileged position. The current Chrome OS for netbooks, I believe, is a clear misread of the market. People want a better phone, not a worse computer, and Google will likely fail with this if they make the latter without the former (Android?) catching on first. I think the “PC companies” are not that far behind either. It’s much harder for inexperienced Google to make a good cloud client than for say Microsoft to deliver good cloud integration. In some sense, Microsoft’s lack of execution on this front is due to politics, i.e. lack of will-power to lose a cash cow until it is inevitable, not due to technical barriers.)

Which leads me to this envisioned usage scenario that (1) is actually useful/productive and (2) could really benefit from cloud integration rather than be a poor knock-off of existing desktop programs. It’s actually simple and not novel at all. In fact it has been talked about for decades, but it still cannot be done today (with commonplace hardware and software). Why? If something as simple as this and that should be achievable overnight (technology is there) isn’t even available, then forget about real innovation.

So let me make it very concrete. I take out a piece of hardware — it is a tablet. I would like to write a paper. But I have coauthors. So I start a new document — maybe it’s for writing LaTeX. I start writing — with a pen — or I type, whatever. At some point I decide I want collaboration, so maybe I turn this into a “collaboration” mode. Think of this as going to a public space to write on the whiteboard. Now anybody can see this in progress, in real time, not as its autosaved version, if open up the same program of theirs and I’m on their collaborator list or something. Maybe I tell them out of band that I want to collaborate or they already know. They can request to join, and I can let them, and even add them to the list of collaborators for this document (or project, as every document should be automatically versioned into a project tree). They can edit at the same time as I edit, and each person can see what the other person is doing, if they just went to the right part of the document to look. The part you are editing can be locked if you wish. Or you can lock other parts, doesn’t matter. You can make comments on the margins. You can run a view of the current snapshot any time, without interfering with other editors. At any time, you can save a state as a satisfactory “version”. References can be added by dropping anything — PDF, URL, some search text — and the editor can go look for the reference and turn it into the right format, and cache it into your library of references. If you want to draw figures, you should be able to do it in place, with a pen, and it will be turned into nice figures (discussed separately before)… etc. etc.

It would be even nicer if existing applications can acquire collaboration and versioning abilities simply by the operating system seamlessly supporting things like online storage, multiple inputs, and even more interesting file storage, tagging, linking, and presentation of such information.

Instead, what we get is this and this and this and the like.

Google has “wave”, which gets the “real-time collaboration” piece of the puzzle. Microsoft should be able to modify the OS to take care of existing applications and make online storage seamless (still no integrated network drive in 2009, incredibly). Apple should make a useable tablet (rumored as it is) as a form factor that people can like. But what we will get, I’m almost sure, will be half-baked versions of all of these and they won’t work together. Now, although Chrome OS seems to disown local hardware and software in favor of a crackling, slow, and flaky internet pipe, a decision that I do not believe is ideal at this time, I can at least see it work out eventually. But this depends on Chrome OS enabling collaboration — something so well matched to cloud integration — so a value proposition could be made for using it. If they do not even do this, I would consider them incompetent.

As a (long) footenote, I would like to say that big companies these days have regressed in terms of being bold with innovation — understandable, given the environment — but still disappointing considering the pace of change in the 1990′s. Look at the state of affairs:

- Microsoft has the vast reserves of technical expertise and vendor sway to do some great things, but it has already turned into another IBM — sucking on the teats of enterprise — and long forgotten the consumer. Innovation, if it can be called that, comes in the form of cheap me-too projects.

- Apple with its fashionable packaged goods and excellent marketing certainly has the ear of the consumer but rip away the covers of any product and it doesn’t do anything that hasn’t already been done with uglier hardware. The proprietary locking of hardware and expense also funnel third-party development into mostly useless crapwhere and jokeware.

- Google has put out the most ideas with at least a modicum of novelty in recent years, but lately its resources have clearly been put into some kind of positioning game for some impending fight for becoming the platform of choice. Or perhaps existing pieces have gotten too big or complex that it takes so much overhead to manage, who knows. Its latest products have not been bold, Chrome OS included — I mean they are good, even better than what exists perhaps, but not outright bold and not convincing, always leaving a lingering feeling of what-if.

- Facebook and Amazon? Beyond their respective primary business, they are still nothing, though they are looking for ideas.

I’m actually hoping I am entirely wrong and this is the calm before the storm of massive transformation. But I’m waiting…

Oh do they? But come… on…, what is this ridiculous demonstration? Okay, okay, it’s the IT Policy School over there, let’s cut them some slack. What they’ve come up with is a way to read seated DRAM under OS lock without specialized hardware, and if they said that, it would be fine.

While I don’t care for their pseudo-slick presentation and shameless self-promotion (with a “blog”?), it is still a curious piece of work. Its unfortunate and regurgitated untechnicality leaves questions, though. DRAM is refreshed in tens of milliseconds, and since DRAM manufacturers are always trying to cut power consumption, I’m going to assume this rate is necessary to ensure reliable read out. There is a 3-order magnitude difference between that and the seconds to minutes reported that DRAM can be without power and still be read, during which time exponential charge decay takes place. Something else has to be going on, no? It just isn’t entirely clear that when the computer is turned off momentarily, on-board capacitors or even on-module capacitors aren’t discharging for long enough to residually power the refresh circuitry [*]. On the other hand, they claim they can remove the RAM completely and (with the help of liquid nitrogen) halt for an hour without power. I have some doubts as they dance around this issue.

As for real implication for security, there isn’t much, if only because this kind of breach isn’t fundamental. We already know that once indefinite hardware access to a running machine is first obtained (a practical requirement for this attack), there are always ways to compromise it. That’s how the Xbox was cracked — I’m talking about in-parallel probes on pins and traces, which can be just as well applied to the scenario here. Unless there are self-destructive mechanisms or other fundamental barriers to hardware access, we are just dealing with a matter of how high is the effort threshold. To fix it, encryption keys should not be stored in RAM in a detectable way, and any TPM modules that are currently being designed should have additional hardware security measures. That’s not hard to do, but in the meantime, let’s sit back and watch an uptick in the cracking of existing software and DRM protection schemes, as protected areas of RAM are opened up to easy hacking — a far more likely and practical fallout.

[*] I just read their full technical documentation, and they seem a little sloppy. They measure (and plot) total module read out error rate, but then fit a curve to it that they justify with MOSFET charge decay characteristics. Isn’t that right? Well, no: error rate should exhibit the typical digitizing water-fall effect of the comparator circuit.