| ▲ | oa335 6 hours ago |
| Came here to say this as well. It took decades for effects of personal computing to show up in aggregate statistics. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox
and
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/163298.163309 edit: My comment is not exactly right, its more about general computing rather than personal computing |
|
| ▲ | marcelo-earth 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Someone should add a 2025–2045 section in the Wikipedia page of Productivity Paradox The decade ahead is going to be a very interesting one |
| |
| ▲ | thereader12 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | That would be speculative, it should only be added in the hypothetical time the productivity actually goes up. Even then, it should be some years in and with third party sources like all of Wikipedia. |
|
|
| ▲ | agumonkey 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| So this was about personal computing ? not computing per se ? I'd assume that by 87, the idea of digital computers benefits would be a non-question. |
| |
| ▲ | msabalau 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It wasn't, generally, a question. People kept buying computers, on faith. It's just that in 1987. the computers were generally and for the most part, irrelevant to productivity, just like steam and electricity were a promising gimmick for a long time before.. they weren't. Looking backwards, it is easy to miss this. | | |
| ▲ | agumonkey 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | at the level of personal employee maybe, even though 87 had lotus 123 version 2. I was barely born but I'd think people would be able to think faster through electronic spreadsheet. |
| |
| ▲ | oa335 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I was too specific, it was more about computing generally as opposed to "personal computing". |
|
