AOL/Gateway/Transmeta Team for Internet Appliance

OK, so now it seems almost official. According to this story in the New York Times (free registration required) - AOL/Gateway will announce their Transmeta/Linux based Web appliances today. The article is particularly interesting since it details the motive behind AOLs going counter Wintel, And Transmeta's Ditzel says it best: "The truth is that the phrase Internet appliance has become a code word in the industry meaning 'no Windows.'" And dare I say: no Intel too... But only time can tell if this is going to be as big as AOL/Transmeta hope. Thanks Eitan for the Link.

oh, good

Now we see the downside of OSS--all us geeks doing cool things to impress each other has produced an open source WebTV.

--

Re:Too lame to make up your own information...

Or you could just use the partner s.nytimes.com link [nytimes.com].

Let me count the ways...

1) Low-power == low-temp == smaller box
2) If the "appliance" is supposed to be portable (or "wireless"), then low-power == longer uptime.
3) A good internet appliance is "always on"--so low-power == lower cost
4) Low-power == tree-hugger happiness
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?

Whereas?

"...AOL is out for one thing and one thing only, that's to make money for their shareholders..."

Unlike RedHat and Transmeta who have a policy of stealing from shareholders and giving to hungry orphans?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?

Establishments, Orthodoxy, Revolution.

It will come as no surprise to me if the whole concept of an "internet appliance" is picked to bits here. And why not? They're annoying little buggers - underpowered and not useful for anything really. Except internet access. Oops! We already have that.

The case "for" is simple enough: make it cheap and idiot-proof. If anyone has a background in working on making the internet cheap and idiot-proof, it's AOL. You may not like their style, but you must concede their relentless drive to AOLize the internet. A foray in hardware is about diminishing returns to scale in software.

Consider, you are AOL. Your program right now is fairly simple for first-time users. But it still sits atop a legacy system that is in itself not so intuitive. Solution? Ditch the legacy.

AOL is actually big enough to somewhat pull this off. Especially now: the Wintel establishment has been wounded on two fronts. AMD has challenged the Intel hegemony, and the DOJ and Linux have undermined Microsoft's aura of unassailability. Suddenly, all the other sharks can smell blood, and are circling for some action.

Let us also note that minicomputer makers - and there were dozens, in their heyday - scoffed at the underpowered clunkers made by IBM. "Peecee". As if there should be a computer *per person*. Puh-lease!

Evolutionary pressure is an amazing thing. PCs evolved out of pretty much nothing into the bedrock of an entire industry. They did not wholly supplant what came before (mainframes and minis), rather, they marginalised them and extended their range of usefulness. A mainframe is no longer a standalone giant in a pen; it is a viable "force extender" for a corporate network of PCs. Mainframes are marginalised by PCs, but also sustained by synergistic adaptation to the new reality.

It may be this way with the general-purpose PC and function-oriented computers. This Brave New World has been the source of much speculation by futurists over the years, so I shall skip past it.

My own outlook is that IAs will eventually evolve to become PCs as we understand them now. People will want to write letters on their IA, and won't really understand why they need to buy a seperate machine to do that. So IAs will emerge with the power to do so. Before long they will have HDDs and user-fsckable GUIs. That is, they will be PCs by another name.

This market is seething and will continue to seethe. Expect either a big player (like AOL) to "make it happen", or for something much more interesting to emerge from nowhere and sweep the whole thing away.

be well;

JC.

--
"Don't declare a revolution unless you are prepared to be guillotined." - Anon.

Re:Oh great, just what we (don't) need

Someone who puts his dog, hamster or cat on the net is not collecting information on me, and I can just choose not to go there. The real danger is companies. The net should be for humans (with some pics of cats, and maybe the occasional talking chimp)

//rdj

Marriage to the Devil?

I have to admit, this is a bit difficult for me to swallow the way it's presented. Come on, AOL running in Linux? It sounds like either a horrible nightmare (to linux geeks and AOL lusers alike), or maybe too good to be true (Linux is being accepted as a mainstream alternative).

Okay, the article doesn't specifically mention that the AOL client will be available for Linux, it only mentions Netscape. So maybe AOL is only making a non-AOL-based box. But then I read where they're offering it to current AOL subscribers. Well, they'd have to offer AOL services then.

So how will AOL port their software to Linux. They can barely manage to keep the Mac version in sync with Windows. So a complete version for Linux being developed in a few months sounds near impossible. They could take a cue from Corel and try using WINE, but then their software is buggy enough to begin with.

A while back I read about AOL trying to move their specialized content away from proprietary formats and using more standardized methods. That was a while ago, and enough time for them to develop a slimmed-down version of the software that access AOL content using standard internet protocols.

But what if they have managed to port the entire AOL codebase to linux, complete with AOL dialer. Then it would be in their best interest to offer the software for download, giving plenty of Linux users who use (or have family members who use) AOL a good reason to abandon dual-booting. I can believe that there are at least a few people who have left AOL specifically because they wanted to migrate to Linux.

But then the part of me that equates "AOL" with "ignorance" steps in. (DISCLAIMER: It's a stereotype, not entirely unjustified, but still far from reality. I'm well aware of the generalization, so there's no need to point out any "examples" of why it's wrong.) So let's argue the Pros and Cons.

CON: I still like to think that Linux has a "clue-shield" about it that prevents people from being able to use it without having to learn a thing or two. AOL is the antithesis of Linux in this respect; it is designed to remove all barriers to the clueless, and specifically panders to them. PRO: Plenty of intelligent people use AOL for various reasons. No need to shut them out.

CON: Following their design philosophy, AOL would want to prevent their users from having to deal with the "complexities" of Linux. They may disguise, take over, or outright cripple Linux in ways that prevent the user from messing with anything that AOL doesn't want them to. PRO: Linux is flexible. Those who want to use it will find a way to turn off the AOL-izations.

CON: Tons of linux-neophytes will now be using, and misusing Linux. IRC channels and newsgroups will be inundated with idiots who don't know what a HOWTO is asking pointless questions. PRO: (and this is different how?) This is the result of continually promoting Linux as a better solution that Windows. You can't have it being both popular and restricted to only those who know.

CON: AOL sucks. PRO: No one's forcing you to use it.
CON: AOL lusers suck. PRO: Elitist bastard.
CON: F*** YOU! PRO: Oh, smeg off!

Okay, my argument has run out of steam. And it's all pure speculation anyway. We don't really know what AOL is doing for this appliance thingy. Maybe it really is going to be web-only and if you want AOL content you'll have to stick with Windows. Until we see an official press release about this, all we can do is blather nonsensically with our thumbs up our butts.

Not that anyone really cares. I know I don't.

PS. I just noticed that the article is written by John Markoff. I long ago decided to dismiss anything Markoff says as pure bullshit. But then this is just parrotting from a press release, so...

PPS. Anyone else notice how much it looks like an iBook? Can you say "Trade dress ifringement"?

Establishments, Orthodoxy, Revolution, Subscribe.

My own outlook is that IAs will eventually evolve to become PCs as we understand them now. People will want to write letters on their IA, and won't really understand why they need to buy a seperate machine to do that. So IAs will emerge with the power to do so. Before long they will have HDDs and user-fsckable GUIs. That is, they will be PCs by another name

This is what scares me. (And excites, too) People want to write a document on the IA. 'Why should I need a new computer?' they say. So, someone fills the need. In my fears, this is Microsoft. They have a web-based (with ActiveX) word processor. You can use it to write great docs, but you have to pay a monthy fee for the service.

See, At the moment, no company has yet been able to charge using the subscription model for mainstream software. Users won't hear of it. 'What if My subscription runs out when I have a big presentation?', and the companies aren't sure how to go about enforcing. But, with a web-based approach, users must log in. The system verifies the account status (and maybe allowed subnet for that account?), and they go on using WebWord. Stop paying? no problem, you just can't edit your docs, or print them.... And if MSWebWord stores your files 'securely' on the server, you can't even have someone else access them. All for your convenience.

That's just one scenerio. Hopefully, a free solution would be available, but the problem with that is server bandwitdh.. I'm sure ads would creep in somewhere (not that that's a problem at all).

Anyway, just some rants and raves. Don't take me too seriously.

these are more usefull than you think

I work remotely all day long. I have VNC sessions onto servers. I'm planning to change my home network topology so that my main working machine will run vnc sessions too, so I can log in from anywhere I choose to.
That's where these appliances come in.
This summer the freepad (http://www.freepad.net/) will be released. It runs on linux, uses nano-X for graphics, and a "developer's" version will follow the initial release.
I plan to get me the developer version, find or port vnc viewer, and have me a presto portable workspot. Wherever i want to work in the house then, all I'd need to do is take it with me. Instant full access to my full-size PC, and yet it only weighs 1.2 kg.
The power of these devices lies in their combination with servers, not as separate units. And AOL realizes that to it's fullest. Think about it ? Why would they want to trim down the client side ? If they trim it down it can run less, while it's in their interest to let it run more. They intend to get these things out there, and then offer server-based add-on services. If I made bets I'd bet a lot on that one.
Anyway, I can't wait for it to happen, we've been trapped at our desks way too long.

And, no, a regular portable PC is still too big to really be portable. I know, I have one, I rarely get the chance to really use it to it's fullest because it's too clunky. I get more work done on my palm than on my portable.

I have my doubts

While the AOL/Gateway device using the Crusoe CPU may be technically a fine idea, there are some issues we need to settle here.

First, will there be local data storage available for this device, or will it become a glorified "dumb" terminal?

Second, will this device allow the playback of streaming A/V files in Real G2, Windows Media and Quicktime 4.x formats? Or how about plugins such as Macromedia Shockwave/Flash and Adobe Acrobat Reader?

Third, what kind of connection beyond the obvious V.90 analog modem will available?

And finally, will it be AOL-only, or can we set up settings from our own ISP?

Gateway has the right idea, but unless it can connect to any ISP the customer chooses and can use the standard browser plugin programs, it's not going to be as popular as AOL thinks.

Re:Unlikely to use Mozilla

CNN (the talking head, sorry no link) just told me it would be a Gecko-based browser, which leads me to believe that you won't be running XTerms on this pad. They're probably using a custom browser based application built on Gecko (that part of Mozilla works pretty well) with Linux as the stable operating system.