> You’re thinking about how people are currently using their devices instead of thinking about how they will be. You could access your computer from any internet connected device, anywhere.

No, I'm thinking about how people are going to be using their devices. One of the advantages this approach touts is that you can have a generic, cheap machine, and just rent something more powerful when you need it.

CAD is the obvious example (which they are giving, not me!) about why this can't really be done: you'll need a fast display and a lot of processing power just to run the browser in the first place (which, with Firefox and Chrome as reference, kind of discards anything older than 4 years anyway), and then you're going to need specific input devices, so it won't really be "any" computer.

Why do you think there were CAD workstations even in the 80s and early 90s, which were the bloody heyday of thin clients and distributed apps? Turns out that, when 80% of the price of the device is due to the graphics cards and monitors, slapping RAM and a hard drive on it makes a lot of things easier.

> Hook up your oculus rift to their paperweight and have a full powered computer anywhere (with internet access).

And what exactly is going to render things for the Oculus Rift? I'm pretty sure you need a computer for that as well!

> While they are mentioning you can use AutoCad, I'd say that is merely to show that it can handle intensive applications.

We have known that intensive applications can be used over a network for at least thirty years. I'm not surprised. What I haven't seen yet -- and this project does not seem to address -- is ways in which these applications can be low- (or at least constant-)latency or how remote storage can simultaneously be secure, private and permanently accessible. I've used networked applications over network a lot faster than the 15 Mbps that Paperspace recommends. Experiencing that over the Oculus Rift makes me nauseous just by thinking about it :).

> The majority wants to be able to surf the internet, and with this, you would never need to buy another computer again.

I doubt it. It's going to be the same 4-6 years before the old Paperspace One will stop being able to keep up with the higher-resolution, more bandwidth-demanding applications (even if they're executed remotely) and you'll have to upgrade to Paperspace Two. The "just wants to surf the Internet" majority would benefit a lot more from fixing web browsers.

> Look at how many people use Dropbox, iCloud, Google drive, etc etc. Everyone is already ok with storing their files in a datacenter. Privacy issues or not, people have accepted it is fact and the high majority already do it. That's not to say it is right, but it's a given that people want convenience over privacy.

I'm not questioning that -- and I'm not questioning the business model of Paperspace. I'm questioning the actual value that it delivers to users -- I'm not questioning the fact that they're willing to pay for it.

> The fact is that if latency problems can be overcome

I think we're optimistically 10 years away from that :). Given the circlejerk happening in telecom and software development circles (especially the slower ones), I think we're a good twenty years before that kind of latency becomes feasible for full-screen, full-color, multimedia-oriented applications under this execution model.