When it comes to computing, it's all about capabilities - and it's still about the appliances that can deliver them. This is where Andy Grove's points in his article in Condé Nast Portfolio about his forthcoming book differ from what I can gather are in Nicholas Carr's next book, "The Big Switch." Grove makes the case that large corporations with shareholders asking for more should set their sights on cross-boundary disruptions. It's a growth strategy – one he cites that Apple Computer exemplifies by its entry into the music industry. Interesting, the appliances delivering personal music experience capabilities are really embodiments of personal computers. They allow us to manage personally selected content, aka a client/server model. So, has the PC really disappeared, or is it morphing as new industries (like music) become vulnerable to innovation and big corporations looking for new growth, i.e., the 'capability predators?' As those PC vs. Mac ads indicate, all those iXXX users out there would have to agree that PC is an old term, but they're not likely to predict that their personal pods, laptops, etc. will be totally dependent on an always-connected grid.

It's hard for me to analogize all of computing to electricity like Carr frequently does, and while companies like Apple are out there reinventing the PC as they exploit their organizational capabilities to attack new industries, it makes me wonder if the lights are dimming for Carr's simplistic view. My perspective was reinforced today when I read the article in the Business section of the Arizona Republic citing how Home Depot is now offering residential solar-power systems in all of its 55 Arizona stores. Maybe Personal Power Systems (PPSs) will be all the rage. I'm going to have to go check them out. I'd bet that PPS has some embodiment of a PC - imagine that, a 'Big Switch' that will invoke my PPS to delink me from the grid. It's not really that shocking, is it?

Everyone is talking about the employer sanctions law that comes into effect in January. Who will be affected? Seems to me that the small businessman sees himself (herself) as a likely target. Taking away the business license from someone who hires only two employees results in the loss of just two Arizona jobs. Shut down a large business that hires, for example, 500 employees and the economic impact is suddenly more serious. Is that how we should look at it?

If you're driving along a highway and see a curiosity at the side of the road, such as the carnival just south of Phoenix on the I-10, it's easy to spend a second or two looking at it. The problem is that the couple of seconds spent by each driver adds up to a long tie-up for the people at the back of the line. This is what could happen with small business and the employer sanctions law. Because small business sees itself as a likely target, small business hesitates to invest. While each small business is, well, small, the aggregate effect of small business in Arizona is large. We can't think of small business as just another two jobs.