PAC — Personal Ambient Computing

The next evolution of personal computing won’t replace your phone — it will free computing from any single device.

Like most technologists of a certain age, many of my expectations for the future of computing were set by Star Trek production designers. It’s quite easy to connect many of the devices we have today to props designed 30-50 years ago: The citizens of the Federation had communicators before we had cellphones, tricorders before we had smartphones, PADDs before we had tablets, wearables before the Humane AI pin, and voice interfaces before we had Siri. You could easily make a case that Silicon Valley owes everything to Star Trek.

But now, there seems to be a shared notion that the computing paradigm established over the last half-century has run its course. The devices all work well, of course, but they all come with costs to culture that are worth correcting. We want to be more mobile, less distracted, less encumbered by particular modes of use in certain contexts. And, it’s also worth pointing out that the creation of generative AI has made the corporate shareholders ravenous for new products and new revenue streams. So whether we want them or not, we’re going to get new devices. The question is, will they be as revolutionary as they’re already hyped up to be? I’m old enough to remember the gasping “city-changing” hype of the Segway before everyone realized it was just a scooter with a gyroscope. But in fairness, there was equal hype to the iPhone and it isn’t overreaching to say that it remade culture even more extensively than a vehicle ever could have.

So time will tell.

I do think there is room for a new approach to computing, but I don’t expect it to be a new device that renders all others obsolete. The smartphone didn’t do that to desktop or laptop computers, nor did the tablet. We shouldn’t expect a screenless, sensor-ridden device to replace anyone’s phone entirely, either. But done well, such a thing could be a welcome addition to a person’s kit. The question is whether that means just making a new thing or rethinking how the various computers in our life work together.

As I’ve been pondering that idea, I keep thinking back to Star Trek, and how the device that probably inspired the least wonder in me as a child is the one that seems most relevant now: the Federation’s wearables. Every officer wore a communicator pin — a kind of Humane Pin light — but they also all wore smaller pins at their collars signifying rank. In hindsight, it seems like those collar pins, which were discs the size of a watch battery, could have formed some kind of wearable, personal mesh network. And that idea got me going…

The future isn’t a zero-sum game between old and new interaction modes. Rather than being defined by a single new computing paradigm, the future will be characterized by an increase in computing: more devices doing more things.

I’ve been thinking of this as a PAC — Personal Ambient Computing.

Personal Ambient Computing

At its core is a modular component I’ve been envisioning as a small, disc-shaped computing unit roughly the diameter of a silver dollar but considerably thicker. This disc would contain processing power, storage, connectivity, sensors, and microphones.

Not exactly unlike what people are already speculating that the forthcoming io/OpenAI device will be.

The difference here is that a PAC disc could be worn as jewelry or embedded in a wristwatch with its own display or housed in a handheld device like a phone or reader or integrated into a desktop or portable (laptop or tablet) display or embedded in household appliances. This approach could create a personal mesh network of PAC modules, each optimized for its context, rather than forcing every function in our lives through a smartphone.

There has been plenty of earned dunking on the Humane Pin and the Rabbit R1 — they just weren’t good devices — which has lead to a rampage of preemptive dunking on what io/OpenAI will make. But in all fairness, some of the ideas behind those devices aren’t bad ones; the craft just wasn’t there. But the implicit idea of a singular AI-driven device to replace your phone is a bad idea. No one wants that; no one will find forcing all the interactions they’ve become accustomed to through a voice interface “delightful.”

But adding new kinds of devices to the mix is a good idea. That is what PAC should be all about.

The key to making this work lies in the standardized form factor. I imagine a magnetic edge system that allows the disc to snap into various enclosures — wristwatches, handhelds, desktop displays, wearable bands, necklaces, clips, and chargers. By getting the physical interface right from the start, the PAC hardware wouldn’t need significant redesign over time, but an entirely new ecosystem of enclosures could evolve more gradually and be created by anyone.

A worthy paradigm shift in computing is one that makes the most use of modularity, open-source software and hardware, and context. Open-sourcing hardware enclosures, especially, would offer a massive leap forward for repairability and sustainability.

In my illustration above, I even went as far as sketching a smaller handheld — exactly the sort of device I’d prefer over the typical smartphone. Mine would be proudly boxy with a larger top bezel to enable greater repair access to core components, like the camera, sensors, microphone, speakers, and a smaller, low-power screen I’d depend upon heavily for info throughout the day. Hey, a man can dream.

The point is, a PAC approach would make niche devices much more likely.

Power

The disc itself could operate at lower power than a smartphone, while device pairings would benefit from additional power housed in larger enclosures, especially those with screens. This creates an elegant hierarchy where the disc provides your personal computing core and network connectivity, while housings add context-specific capabilities like high-resolution displays, enhanced processing, or extended battery life.

Simple housings like jewelry would provide form factor and maybe extend battery life. More complex housings would add significant power and specialized components. People wouldn’t pay for screen-driving power in every disc they own, just in the housings that need it.

This modularity solves the chicken-and-egg problem that kills many new computing platforms. Instead of convincing people to buy an entirely new device that comes with an established software ecosystem, PAC could give us familiar form factors — watches, phones, desktop accessories — powered by a new paradigm. Third-party manufacturers could create housings without rebuilding core computing components.

Privacy

It’s worth saying that this is not something I particularly want Apple to create. Nor Google, Microsoft, Meta, OpenAI, or anyone else already worth a billion or more dollars.

This vision of personal ambient computing aligns with what major corporations already want to achieve, but with a crucial difference: privacy. The current trajectory toward ambient computing comes at the cost of unprecedented surveillance. Established tech corporations already envision futures where computing is everywhere, but where they monitor, control and monetize the flow of information.

That’s a control over culture that I fundamentally reject.

PAC demands a different future — one that leaves these corporate gatekeepers behind. A personal mesh should be just that: personal. Each disc should be configurable to sense or not sense based on user preferences, allowing contextual control over privacy settings. Users could choose which sensors are active in which contexts, which data stays local versus shared across their mesh, and which capabilities are enabled in different environments. A PAC unit should be as personal as your crypto vault.

Admitedly, this is an idea with a lot of technical and practical hand-waving at work. And at this vantage point, it isn’t really about technical capability — I’m making a lot of assumptions about continued miniaturization, network bandwidth, storage capacities, and other things. It is about computing power returning to individuals rather than being concentrated in corporate silos. PAC represents ambient computing without ambient surveillance. And it is about computing graduating its current form and becoming more humanely and elegantly integrated into our day to day lives.

Next

The smartphone isn’t going anywhere. And we’re going to get re-dos of the AI devices that have already spectacularly failed. But we won’t get anywhere especially exciting until we look at the personal computing ecosystem holistically.

PAC offers a more distributed, contextual approach that enhances rather than replaces effective interaction modes. It’s additive rather than replacement-based, which historically tends to drive successful technology adoption. I know I’m not alone in imagining something like this. I’d just like to feel more confident that people with the right kind of resources would be willing to invest in it.

By distributing computing across multiple form factors while maintaining continuity of experience, PAC could deliver on the promise of ubiquitous computing without sacrificing the privacy, control, and interaction diversity that make technology truly personal.

The future of computing shouldn’t be about choosing between old and new paradigms. It should be about computing that adapts to us, not the other way around.

Christopher Butler, May 30, 2025  
Filed under: Essays