"Pushed out of the cloud" to my fat cache (and thus in many cases pushing something out of my fat cache). Furthermore, it was proposed that changes to the cache would be synced across devices.
This, as the comment to which I responded proposes, creates an issue because the state of the device is unknown to the user and any particular piece of data or particular program may or may not be available at any time.
Perhaps I am just dense, but I do not see how this is advantageous compared to local storage. In other words, just because you feed it a case of Krispy Creames, a thin client is still a thin client.
For a given amount of storage, a Fat Cache may beat a thin client. But it's turtles all the way down, if the amount digital information people store keeps increasing, i.e. the first box of ten 720k floppies lasted me the better part of a year.
This, as the comment to which I responded proposes, creates an issue because the state of the device is unknown to the user
Reorient your thinking. The central thing is no longer the "device" it's the user's account and sessions in the cloud. The user's data never goes away, it's just that access to it is sometimes good and sometimes not so good. Mostly, it's good.
Nowadays, if a user's mobile broadband is broken, they just think of going somewhere with better reception. In a few years, when a seldom used piece of data has fallen out of the cache, they'll just think, oh well, I'll get back to it in a bit. (Or, if it's really important, they can select "Keep Available" so it'll be there next time.)
However, if you go back to a time before mobile broadband was commonplace, and you tried to introduce someone to it in a bad reception zone, they would've been very "meh." That seems to be where you are.
A strong case can be made that having access to mobile broadband intermittently is an improvement for the user over the way things worked before.
I haven't seen anyone even attempt to make a case that intermittent access to one's data and apps is an improvement over the current systems.
In other words, why would anyone willingly switch to this model? And among the unwilling, how does it better meet the needs of business than a thin client or other conventional solutions?
Having to select "Keep Available" requires the user to accurately predict the future value of access, cache space for it, and adds another step to the process of saving stuff for later use.
It's not availability for next time that's the issue. It's availability now, when I need it that matters.
A better analogy is a allen wrench sitting in a toolbox out in the garage. It's not at hand when the disposal is stuck, but access is predictable. What you are proposing is that someone comes by once a week and swaps out the tools in the toolbox based on which one's you have been using most recently.
This, as the comment to which I responded proposes, creates an issue because the state of the device is unknown to the user and any particular piece of data or particular program may or may not be available at any time.
Perhaps I am just dense, but I do not see how this is advantageous compared to local storage. In other words, just because you feed it a case of Krispy Creames, a thin client is still a thin client.
For a given amount of storage, a Fat Cache may beat a thin client. But it's turtles all the way down, if the amount digital information people store keeps increasing, i.e. the first box of ten 720k floppies lasted me the better part of a year.