I can imagine a time when the screen and input devices go away, and we just speak or gesture at computers to get results, but I think that’s a long ways off. However, I think there is a near-term step that dissolves the computer even more. Not making it smaller, but doing away with it all-together.

Computers communicate to their monitors at a given data rate (I don’t want to look up that data rate, because it sounds irritating to find) -but they do. Eventually, we will be able to reliably and wirelessly communicate with devices at speeds that meet, or exceed the speeds of devices connected by cables. We may already be able to do that speed-wise, I’m not sure. But “reliability” is the big part of this equation.

Nobody can tell me that Apple cannot wirelessly synch an iPhone to a computer. They can. For sure they can. But it occasionally probably doesn’t work. Or goes slowly. Or works not at all due to interference… Whatever the reason, it’s not ready for prime time, and a cable is more reliable.

When wireless is as fast as, and as reliable as cables connecting screens to computers, the whole game will change.

At that point, the small little white rounded rectangle that is my AirPort could be my computer. If you’ve used Air Display, the software for the iPad that does screen sharing over WiFi, you know the feeling. You see it instantly… If this was faster, I wouldn’t need my computer! I could bring my extra monitor with me wherever I went. As I return to homebase, I can again have the added real-estate. But I think this is near-term thinking still.

Imagine the new Mac Mini. About the same size as an Airport. It’s connected to your internet connection and your WiFi. Or is your WiFi. Your iPad, or iPad HD that’s 35” wide can connect to it at will. As different users on the same box. Depending on permissions, able to see different resources.

Face it. Right now your computer is faster than you. It’s only going to get faster. Soon it will be faster than two, three, four, and 10 of you. At that point, your one computer can run all of your devices at once, the same as a webserver serves hundreds of users tiny 500K bunches of files today. When bandwidth increases, it no longer requires your computer to be attached to your device.

In fact, as bandwidth increases, not only on local area networks, but on the internet as well, you no longer really have to own a computer. One really, really great computer can be hundreds, or thousands of people’s computer at once. No different than Gmail is millions of people’s inbox today. When horsepower, and bandwidth increase to that point, you’re just receiving the results of computed cycles that happened nowhere near you in the form of a generated picture.

The same as movie theaters turned into TV. The same as phonographs turned into radio. Same as the printing press turned into the NY Times. Technologies climb to where small capitalistic devices become really big commune services that are free, or very cheap to consume. Not everyone needs to own them, as they become ubiquitous in their availability.

So is this a good thing? I have no idea. I’m just making wild guesses here. I could be, and likely am, totally wrong. But as I chart today’s growth, I see it heading here. Extenuating circumstances, invention, sociological changes, could all change this possible future. But no waffling. If I had to bet today, that’s what I see happening in the next 10 years.

The iPad has the same intimate feeling for content as paper. I think it’s a great opportunity for a mac developer to build a plugin to the OSX print dialog for iPad output via bluetooth. Not only is it a great way to share documents with yourself right before heading out, it’s a placebo for paper in those few times we still need it most.

That’s the iPad.”

-John Gruber

It’s a big maybe, -but a really valid point. Web and app developers are always going to struggle with this. Pixels have no physical characteristics, or culture to embrace, -they can be anything. I get the feeling that the iPad is Apple’s effort to appeal to the older crowd in a way that they never have. Simpler, bigger, and more like the real world. All of the apps matching their real world counterpart will probably help users who spent the first 30+ years of their life without a computer adapt more easily.

I have never in a decade of post-college adulthood subscribed to a physical newspaper. I have subscribed to a few printed magazines (mostly as received gifts) but for more than a year have subscribed to none.

However I’m what I would consider a voracious consumer of content. I read blogs, books (both virtual and digital) listen to podcasts, and lots of audiobooks. So it’s not that I lack the wherewithal, or the desire to read a daily newspaper.

It’s just never seemed rewarding enough for me to do so. Either cost, fussiness, or even the environmental concern have led me to skip it. So. When Apple announced the iPad I was excited. It seemed like I might finally be the archetypal adult sitting in the armchair with a cup of coffee reading the newspaper-but the new kind. The digital kind.

Unfortunately I don’t think that I’m quite there yet. According to a link I picked up off of DF, the NYT is thinking of charging $20-$30 per month for the content. Keep in mind these things:

• That equals potentially $360 per year.
• The 7 day a week print version for a NYC resident is only $305 per year.
• The web version is free
• I’m not one of those people who would normally care. If I want it, and I can afford it, I will buy it.

But… This is a mess. I understand basic business. I understand profit. I don’t think anything in the world should be free. But I hate to see business plans that are poorly priced. A $5 product that sells a million units is much more powerful than a $30  product that sells a 100 units.

Price is an intrinsically huge part of how a product is perceived in the marketplace. And for NYT to price the digital version of their product higher than the physical equivalent that requires ink, trees, postage, and personnel to produce seems like a big F.U. to our generation.

It says, “you’re not doing it right.” It says “your way is an inconvenience to us, and you should be penalized.” I understand their fear. I understand their reluctance. I can relate to it in many ways. But unfortunately, none of that compels me to want to subscribe.

It’s a shame to waste all that excitement I felt. I can only imagine I’m not the only one begging to finally be a new digital person who fits into an old media world.