Personal computing for the masses  

Greg at BTD writes at some length about Google's plans for world domination; he's pretty much convinced that Google is building the network-based, server-based future, and who wouldn't be? It's happening now, and it's been happening for some time.

But does Google really have such a big long term advantage here? Yes they have the biggest server-complex and yes they have a head start with some kickass applications, but if the model is for applications to be available through the internet, I see no reason why they can't be provided by many different companies. In fact, if anything this kind of setup would reduce the cost to a user of switching applications, making it easier for competitors to enter. So despite the fact that Google has a head start, I don't really see how a Google-dominated world happens. Obviously the whole advertising business model does respond to scale (since the company with the most applications knows the most about you, its advertising is more precisely targeted), but there are other ways of structuring an online business -- Flickr for instance seems to work well with a subscription model. Others wil follow suit.

Anyway my point, beyond agreeing with the premise about the general direction of things, is that there's no reason to presume we'll end up in a unipolar computing world in the future. Rather, the diversity and ubiquity of the internet should continue to foster widespread creativity even as the interface changes.