You make a very good point. It bothers me when I see rosy predictions of how much better things will be when we have everything in the cloud. There's still way too many places where you can't get a cell signal for me to be convinced to put all my data in the cloud. Maybe as a backup copy but I'm with you. I prefer to keep my data with me.
I agree entirely in the wireless world. IBM's hardware/software/storage solution is not oriented toward wireless consumers users, but Big Data and analytics tha can be quickly configured run and then disassembled--the rental paradigm.
Cloud computing is great when you are connected - and as a mobile society we can gain access to our information from many locations. However, cell phone users are all too aware of the many places in which they cannot get a signal. For WiFi only devices, the problem is much worse since signals may be absent or require expensive subscriptions. I believe in having local access to all my information (hence my laptop computer rather than a mainframe terminal connection). I accept that I cannot have access to the Internet at all times (cannot access Wikipedia for information that I never knew) - but I expect to have access to all my legacy information all the time.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.