Lately I've been pondering the similarities between mobile app development of today and shareware back in the day. What I think about is how shareware was really pretty big and many individual developers where putting out all kinds of little programs. I think that's what mobile app development is like right now. I also think that you had a few shareware developers who really hit it big, but by far most shareware developers just making a little extra scratch. I suspect the same is true in mobile development. Ultimately, I think we'll move past this preoccupation with the sheer number of mobile apps available (I think we've already rounded the bend actually) and the focus on crazy amounts of mobile apps will level off. I think that shareware developers, who cut their teeth programming their own software, eventually transitioned into jobs where they wrote software for corporate overlords will also happen for mobile developers. All the skills developed writing personal mobile apps will transition into job skills for companies looking for programmers to move their LOB apps into the mobile space.

Two things: I agree with others that have pointed out that you run all kinds of computer electronics and probably work at home like many of us while many of your neighbors aren't home during the day. I wouldn't factor in the kids because many of the comparable homes probably have kids,too. But, what I would really love to see is a graph that shows when all those upgrades you made -- the $200 thermostat, the $25 LED light bulbs, etc. -- will eventually pay off!

As other commenters have pointed out, touch and/or keyboard exists on other devices and in some cases have existed for a long time, but the point is that Microsoft has pulled a trick from Apple's playbook: They've used their influence and position combined with actually doing something very well to make it popular. The Surface hardware combined with the Win8 Modern UI has shown us that even though these things are first generation, there's a bright future for this style of computing AND Microsoft's muscle has given it a huge boost.

I like to think that in some cosmic sort of way each one of us that listens and cries along with Anthony or the family in Jeff's court case, that we lessen their pain in some way just by sharing.

@James: "It is a people error because the system did not decide to display L*ss*y on its own; people made that decision. The system did not decide to allow users to add credit card information to an account without proper authentication; people made that decision." The distinction is between how the system functions and prevents intrusion on its own, versus actions that people take that unwittingly give hackers access. In this example, the system was designed in a vulnerable way. An attack like that is made possible because a hacker can make a frontline assault on the system instead of calling a customer service person or sending the user an email bomb to open.

My take-away from this story is that I'm old because that era was a simpler, gentler time. The biggest crime in hacking was generally the phreaking side of things by using services without paying for them and hacking was mostly just snooping around systems without permission. Today, hacking is a significant crime that usually involves stolen credit cards or bringing down massive systems and causing real damage.

Speaking of Egyption Brackets, I recently wanted to post a SO question (but don't have the nerve) asking why people still use Egyption Brackets because I thought that style died out years and years ago especially after Code Complete.

Best part of Win8 is that we can deliver line-of-business apps to corporate clients so it will be much, much, much more than just-another-Facebook-machine.

@Tony, I hear you want to unsubscribe because you fell this post is maudlin?

I'm far from a Steve Jobs fanatic, but he gave an excellent commencement address years back that talks about failures and complements very well what Jeff has just said. I encourage all of you to read it (even people like me who are normally turned off by the cult of Jobs): http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html

The misunderstanding we're having stems from us thinking the skills we have are more important than they are and also, at the same time, selling ourselves short. It's the analogy with plumbers that bears this out. We are not like plumbers. What plumbers do is more like what the Geek Squad does (and both trades are very important): - Pulling a dropped ring out of a P-Trap is like restoring lost desktop icons. - Unclogging a drain is like removing a virus from a computer. - Fixing a leaky faucet is like setting up a VPN. - Even running copper pipes to a new bathroom is more like setting up a router and running CAT5 than it is to anything coders do. What we do -- trying to stick to plumbing -- is more like the guys who build dishwashers or hot water tanks or come up with new piping systems. Coders are more like the engineers that create machines. So, should everybody learn how to empty a P-Trap or unclog a drain? Yes, in the same way they should know how to remove a virus or setup a connection to their router. Those are skills that everybody should know. Should a normal person learn how to create a garbage disposal, which is more like the kind of things coders do? If they are interested and want to, sure, but that's not the point of Atwood's blog post, which was saying that coding is not a skill that is as important as reading and writing. Building a garbage disposal might give you insight on how plumbing works and would make you more of a well-rounded person, but it certainly doesn't rank up there with a must-have skill, and neither does programming. Nobody is dissuading people from programming or arguing that knowing how to program would be beneficial, but let's not oversell the importance and say it's as necessary as reading and writing.

@macmnc said it best above: "Programming is a *very* inefficient method of learning how computers work, or learning how problem solving works. Knowing how to write FizzBuzz won't help you understand why streaming is taking up bandwidth." Also, the analogy is not between programming and plumbing, but probably programming and electrical engineering. Shouldn't all of use coders learn how circuit boards works and gates and transistors and all that shiny stuff on the motherboard? Wouldn't knowing all of those things help us write better code? The answer is that it would help marginally and there are far better ways we could devote ourselves to become better coders; much in the same way that normal people would better their own computer literacy through other means than coding. One final point: Jeff is not dissuading people who want to learn coding for a hobby or out of interest; he's attacking the notion that coding is a necessary skill that everybody needs to learn.

learning to code != becoming a better analytical thinker And, whatever the skills that coding conveys, there are probably far easier and more efficient ways to attain them. It's far more important if people spend their time learning general computer literacy. Also, having people learn how to code just so they can deal with us professional coders better -- while personally compelling -- isn't a good enough reason either and I question whether toying with some JavaScript really provides enough insight in what we do for a living.