As Yoda said, "Always in motion, the future, "and we are poised to see the most dramatic shift in computing since computers moved from corporate machine rooms to the desktop: cloud computing.
The concept is that applications and files live not on your desktop computer, but in a "big supercomputer in the sky" to which you connect via the internet. The concept isn't new; France's Minitel was a start, and the sub-$200 NIC, introduced in 2000, ditched the hard drive and ran Linux but was ahead of its time - trying to run programs via dial-up was an exercise in frustration, and you couldn't install programs for offline work. But now broadband in the U.S., while still lagging behind many countries, has reached critical mass and webbased apps (like Google Docs) have the potential to obviate the need for installing programs on your computer-or at least, "bread and butter" programs that we all need, like word processors and spreadsheets.
Proponents claim several advantages for cloud computing. Computers would be simpler and cheaper, as they would need little local storage and be essentially just internet terminals (Apple's MacBook Air is perhaps a glimpse into the future). Devices like the iPhone could hook into the cloud as well. Furthermore, files would always be available to anyone with an internet connection: Companies like GoToMyPC.com would go the way of the dinosaur, and you'd never worry about being without a crucial file on the road because you forgot to put it on a USB drive. Another advantage is that because programs don't live on your desktop, anyone accessing those programs would always be using the latest version. In fact, all users would be using the same version - no more "I can't read .docx files on my version of Word!" issues. And if your hard drive crashed, just buy a new hard drive - if you even need one - because your data lives elsewhere.
But there are a couple of tin linings in these clouds. One is that maintaining a computing "superserver" is daunting, requiring huge amounts of electricity. While the overall impact will be offset by a new generation of "green" computers with low power chips and flash memory, the real problem is whether the company hosting all this is going to have a build a power plant down the road just to deal with acres of computers and cooling equipment.
Another snag is whether you're willing to give up control of your data to the clouds. Think of all the companies that won't let files past their firewalls; they need a serious level of security. (Conversely, think of all the crucial data on employee's laptops and USB drives, representing the potential for huge security breaches; a truly secure cloud would eliminate those worries.) But if the server goes down, what happens? And given that nothing can really be protected from hackers, a central repository of documents would be a treasure trove for industrial espionage - and those who'd like to co-opt a ton of credit card numbers. As to terrorism, one well-placed explosive on the power lines running to the superserver could produce chaos.
For pro audio, another hazard is hardware/software synergy. We're still tied to hardware, no matter how "in the box" we are; you won't be able to plug a mie into a cloud. And we all know what happens when a software update "breaks" our hardware connection: panic. Will you be able to go back to the previous version of the program? Probably not, but who knows? On the other hand, the collaborative possibilities are enormous. The idea of individual user communities and services like YouSendlt.com would become obsolete as people could access any file, anywhere, any time.
Then there's the issue of just how many clouds there are going to be. We could probably handle a situation similar to what we have with desktop operating systems, where there are really only three players, and a great deal of compatibility (compare networking a Vista computer with OS X to networking Windows 98 with OS 9 - we've made real progress). But cloud computing works optimally if there's one huge, centralized cloud - and who's big enough to pull that off? Well, Google for starters, given that they already have Google Docs. Nor is Microsoft asleep at the switch; their last developers conference saw the introduction of Azure, with various services for cloud computing (hosting and management, SQL database services and reporting, Microsoft .NET, Live Services so users can store, share and sync documents, and Microsoft SharePoint for business collaboration). But what puts real teeth into all this is Microsoft's building of a serious data center infrastructure - a crucial component for anyone wanting to take over the cloud world. Think about it: After dominating the desktop, it's unlikely Microsoft would settle for anything else in the clouds.
Will cloud computing take off? The reality is that it already exists. Net-based email accounts exist in the clouds, and people back up their hard drives online. Microsoft, sensing the dangers posed by Google Docs, announced plans to offer a cloud -based variant of Office. Services like iBackup have created their own little clouds for file sharing. But persistent, and troubling, doubts about privacy remain; if I post a bunch of audio files in the cloud for sharing with collaborators, will we all be bombarded with ads for iPods and Zunes? I guess we'll find out soon enough.
