There's an element of "network effect" here. Most (non phone) apps use the WIMP interface, therefore all OSes support it. All the apps are written for the WIMP interface because 1) that's what the OS supports, 2) that's what all the other apps do, and 3) that's what everybody knows.

To break through that, a new interface paradigm has to be massively better - enough better that it's worth buying a new computer, a new OS, and all-new apps (from a very limited selection) to get it. That's an insanely high bar, which no alternative to the WIMP interface has cleared. So the WIMP interface continues unchallenged... except for phones. It's going to continue to rule the desktop/laptop world, though, and not because of "corporate greed". WIMP will continue because nothing is enough better to be worth the cost of switching.

Up until Windows 95, WIMP could have been toppled by something acheivable and better. That was nearly 30 years ago, so maybe something better that couldn't be acheived back then is supressed by the status quo.

WIMP on hand held devices isn't great (ask early windows mobile). It's just too fiddly. But if touchscreen interfaces were better at a desk, we'd be doing that on desktops and laptops now. Touchscreens are readily available, it's just way more effective to have an interface that isn't occluded by using it.

Voice based interfaces clearlty work for some, but they're really fiddly for non-linear access.

> But if touchscreen interfaces were better at a desk, we'd be doing that on desktops and laptops now.

The ergonomics of touch desktops don't really work. Lifting your arm (big muscle groups) and trying to manipulate fingertip sized widgets (fine motor muscles) in concert is very strenuous. There's a reason writing apologies on a chalkboard used to be punishment in schools.

For one-off activities or very short sessions it might work for some people. However the WIMP interface with its proxied inputs of a keyboard and mouse work far better for more people for longer durations.

Touch and direct input like a stylus works much better on displays that can sit horizontal (or mostly so). No matter how good a touch interface is, people just physically can't use them for long periods on a vertical display.

> Touch and direct input like a stylus works much better on displays that can sit horizontal (or mostly so). No matter how good a touch interface is, people just physically can't use them for long periods on a vertical display.

Yes, and if you set up a horizontal display for a desk, you're going to end up with neck strain. You could maybe do something at an angle, like a drafting table, but probably still balancing neck and arm issues. And you'd probably need to adjust display construction to reduce the distortion from viewing it at such a high vertical angle.

You're completely right. The horizontal display is only better than the vertical touch display, it's still worse than the vertical non-touch display with horizontal input devices.

    So the WIMP interface continues unchallenged... except for phones.

I used Siri on the iPhone for the first time in trying to return a lost property to its owner. The experience left much to be desired. Siri failed.

Do you realize the concepts for computing tablets came out of PARC as well?

Alan Kay gave a couple lectures at Stanford on "How to Invent the Future" and went over all the stuff that came out of there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id1WShzzMCQ

Much of what we use today was conceptualized 50+ years ago. PARC's outputs paid off immensely for Xerox over a very long period of time since they picked a tech (laser printing) that was perfect for their wheelhouse. Companies and our culture these days don't allow for exploration like PARC was allowed. There is too much focus on monetizing everything and having an ROI.

Yes - so much of modern computing came from PARC. Ethernet too. The reputation of PARC though has always been that it was a squandered asset - they invented so much genuinely useful technology and Xerox failed to capitalize on the majority of it.

For a while Blue Skies research labs such as PARC, IBM Watson, Bell Labs seemed to have disappeared, but arguably they are back (different companies/labs though) now with a focus on ML/AI. I'm not sure which commercial labs are still doing fundamental material science research though.

I think we will see engineering innovation in the AI/ML space as new processors are developed. We may get more interesting software as well. One problem is that academics need million dollar compute budgets at the moment to even get close to the output of Google/OpenAI/FAIR. Hopefully the DOD, DOE, NSF and NIH and ultimately Congress will act.