Why Microsoft Should Fear Bandwidth 605
Mike writes "Microsoft should fear increasing bandwidth to the consumer more than any other single factor as a threat to their monopoly. The average user has no desire to be the sysadmin of their machine(s), and telcos and cable companies would be glad to take this task from them -- for a nominal fee, of course, as application service providers. The PC as we know it probably only has a decade or so left."
I'll believe it.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'll believe it.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'll believe it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately it would just be another way for an ISP to justify sucking more money from each user in monthly fees.
The big get bigger (Score:5, Insightful)
50 years ago when car's were expensive and walking was the norm downtown's thrived. After cars became cheaper and roads led everywhere the malls tore into the business the downtown core had thrived on. We now see big box stores killing downtown's everywhere.
Microsoft is as 'big box' as they come.......while there is no doubt that strategies behind operating systems and the internet will meld together I don't see it as a reason to see Microsoft to not be a prominent part of that.
Re:The big get bigger (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft is as 'big box' as they come.......while there is no doubt that strategies behind operating systems and the internet will meld together I don't see it as a reason to see Microsoft to not be a prominent part of that.
Yeah but if the article is correct (disclaimer: I disagree with it; but for the sake of debate...) would Microsoft still be as heavy of a hitter as they are today? How much of their revenue comes from new OS sales again? In this area they seem to be a victim of their own success.
Re:I'll believe it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
As a ISP helpdesk technician, I personally don't want to support some webtv bullshit. And the people that run the company I work for, make it policy to support as little as possible. When
Re:I'll believe it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
About the only configuration issue I have with windows is when it randomly decides my keyboard repeat rate should be set to slowest, but I only notice this when I am flipping around my KVM a lot.
B) It's not normal to have to reinstall the OS every 3 weeks.
You are right, it is not
C) It's not normal to have to upgrade to the latest version of the OS just for the machine to behave normally (Note: though this isn't true if you want the latest security patches).
Define "behave normally". If by that you mean being safe from viruses and what not, then this is definitly the case, no matter what OS you are running. I can't recall any of microsoft's updates ever altering the functionality of windows ( other than some major SP things, like the firewall etc ) - which updates are you speaking of?
D) If you use an OS other than windows, all the previous problems disappear.
This is analagous to saying if someone who can't take care of a car, uses a different brand, they will have better luck. While true, the other brand may very well have fewer issues needing repair, it still will break down, and the person will still find a way to fubar it.
One last thing. No one has ***ever*** called up, claiming that their playstation 2 or gamecube is "messed up" and can no longer connect. You'd think that would click in their brains...
What should click in their brains? That they should only allow users to operate on one piece of proprietary software/hardware, and never ever allow them to upgrade? I'll set up a windows box for you, and i'm betting if I dont ever let you change it in any way - it will still be working just fine many years down the line. Just a hunch.
Re:I'll believe it.... (Score:3, Interesting)
You're dead on there, and this is why Windows problems are more on consumer machines than well run business ones. I worked for one department within a university a few ye
Re:I'll believe it.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'll believe it.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'll believe it.... (Score:5, Informative)
With Windows XX out of the picture, the only reason for backups at all will be catastrophic disk failure. Hard drives are so cheap, that I'm wondering why Gateway and Dell aren't offering machines with 2 identical drives, and mirroring on by default. One dies, customer gets a new one, and it rebuilds the mirror. No backup.
And accidental deletions, children playing with the computer, physical damage to the computer, theft, intrusion, software failure (happens on non MS operating systems as well). Windows and Disk failures arent the only reason for backups....What Microsoft should fear the most, is people waking up and realizing that: A) It's not normal for your computer's configuration to get screwed up unless you're messing with it. B) It's not normal to have to reinstall the OS every 3 weeks. C) It's not normal to have to upgrade to the latest version of the OS just for the machine to behave normally (Note: though this isn't true if you want the latest security patches). D) If you use an OS other than windows, all the previous problems disappear.
A) Funnily enough, non of my windows installations screw up their configurations randomly. And Ive been responsable for 150 systems.B) My WinXP install is now 8 months old, after a complete new system install. My dads Win98 install dates from 1999, still completely usable. None of my friends need to reinstall every 3 weeks, and those 150 systems i mentioned before dont need it either.
C) So every Linux Distribution version is a new features version, fixes absolutely nothing in the previous version? Every version of KDE doesnt include bugfixes? Get real.
D) Yes, Windows has issues, but what you are spreading is just FUD.
Re:I'll believe it.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't think of it from a user's perspective. If Dell can offer desktop systems that are dramatically more reliable and so reduce the number of troubleshooting and service calls, that's not only a marketing advantage ("Runs forever!") it's a support advantage.
Now, the cost per unit to put RAID-1 in is still going to exceed the redu
Re:I'll believe it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll believe it.... (Score:4, Interesting)
That beeing said i am kind of attracted to the idea of a internet for real geeks.
At the very least is should kill email worms.
Re:I'll believe it.... (Score:5, Funny)
I call shens (Score:4, Interesting)
Repeat after me. As long as there are laptop computers there will be a strong demand for locally-installed software.
Repeat after me #2. Laptop sales have been steadily rising and will probably continue to do so.
Re:I call shens (Score:2)
Re:I call shens (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't recognize 'intellectual property' people recognize tangible property. For instance, I won't be playing anymore Steam games because I don't like the life of my product to be tied to any company. I can pull duke nukem off the shelf now, install and play, who knows where 3d realms is these days.
Its like not being able to record a song but only listen to it from the radio. People will perceve this as a huge step backwards and I don't think they will accept it at all. Now large companies will probably not be so opposed.
Re:I call shens (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely.
I think that theres, perhaps, a conflation between 'a property of something' as in 'a property of the sun is that it is bright' and property of something as in 'these trousers are my property'
So an idea, or a computer program has the intellectual property that it came out of someones head.
But that doesn't mean that its their property.
The above may or may not fly, its just a thought, but heres the killer of IP
Re:I call shens (Score:3, Insightful)
Intellectual property is one of the great lies of our time. People instinctively find it a flawed concept.
That is because people don't understand it. And the reason that people don't understand it is because it's been twisted massively by media companies bending it to preserve and build their revenues. The attitude you've expressed is flat, dead wrong, but what's really interesting is that Walt Disney Corp. is the company who taught it to you. That's not what they *intended* to teach you, but the les
Re:I call shens (Score:2)
And I read yours as "Trolly Fsck I'm unimaginative".
Re:I call shens (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I call shens (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I call shens (Score:4, Insightful)
Wireless is a half-duplex shared medium. Wireless speeds aren't anywhere near wired speeds. If you want to mention wireless 108Mbps, remember that the actual link speed is about 40Mbps at best. If you havehousemates sharing a cable modem account and not sharing files between each other, "g" is fine. Otherwise, if you are moving a lot of files between computers, you'll want to wire them up if you can.
Re:I call shens (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I call shens (Score:4, Interesting)
No, this is a silly idea even for desktops and it will never fly, because local computing can be made just as good as remote and it doesn't have so many limitations.
Who Eats the Energy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I call shens (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't help you when you are away from a source of connectivity. Although more and more places are getting wireless access points, many charge you for the access and those that don't often have big restrictions on usage.
There's not much point in lugging around a big, plastic wedge if you can only use it in places where there are desktop PCs.
WRONG. (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, while wireless speeds do continue to increase, there are hard
Re:I call shens (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya, when OSes are free! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I call shens (Score:3, Interesting)
Think of the following scenarious:
1) Company A hosts all the programs and data for Person B. Person B writes a document in Word 95. Now Company A upgrades Word to Word 2007. Person's B's documents look all wonky and he has to learn how to deal with a whole new word processor with dozens of new features that he never wanted. If Person B had his documents on his computer, he (or this "computer guy" he knows) could have upgraded MS Word when he damme
Re:I call shens (Score:2)
> ideas been spinning around since the early 90s
> at least.
>
> Repeat after me. As long as there are laptop
> computers there will be a strong demand for
> locally-installed software.
>
> Repeat after me #2. Laptop sales have been
> steadily rising and will probably continue to
> do so.
This many not be what people mean when they
talk about "application service providers", but
I think of the administration of my machines as
being mostly out
Everyone is way off track. (Score:2, Insightful)
Bandwidth isn't going to hurt (or help) Microsoft. They don't provide killer apps. Microsoft's downfall is going to be their own doing. Lack of innovation will stifle sales. MS will try to buy companies with new "killer apps", but that might backfire. Killer apps are going to be helped by an increase in bandwidth. Although MS will jump on the bandwagon and try to steer it as soon
Re:I call shens (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot longer than that. The concept of a simple "information appliance" has been around at least as long as the PC. That's the concept that's actually right for most people, and if computer development were driven solely by consumer needs that's what we'd already have.
But new technology isn't created solely by the market -- that just gives a massive economic incentive. The actual creation of new products is done by all those geeks and hackers w
Re:I call shens (Score:3, Funny)
Madman!
pay up sucka (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:pay up sucka (Score:5, Informative)
Not just APPS, but the OS (Score:4, Interesting)
OVER MY DEAD BODY (Score:2, Funny)
Re:OVER MY DEAD BODY (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OVER MY DEAD BODY (Score:2, Insightful)
Ho hum. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ho hum. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ho hum. (Score:2)
Re:Ho hum. (Score:5, Insightful)
The bandwidth was there on corporate networks, yet the decentrailazation of corporate computing happened anyway.
The fact of the matter is that companies will never trust their business critical processes to an application service provider. That's why the major ASPs failed in the '90s even while corporations *did* have the bandwidth to use their services. This means that it's never going to take of in the consumer market because the business market is where the money is. Consumer software is the drippings of the business computing market with some eye candy added. If the base technology can't catch on in the corporate world, it will never end up on the home desktop.
Lots of really smart people have made the prediction you are making many times in the past and have been wrong, not because they didn't have a solid technical vision, but because they forgot the MBAs rule the world, not the engineers.
Bandwidth is not the issue (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it was a false start because it was a dumb idea.
People don't want to pay subscription fees for software. If they did, we'd see a ton of software being sold month-by-month, with remote activation via Internet. There's no technical block to doing so, and there hasn't been in over a decade. The problem is that whenever someone tries it, nobody outside of the business world is interested.
People don't want to be at the mercy of the cable company or the phone company. We're talking about the two companies the average person probably hates most, and now you're offering them a way to make their entire computer system totally dependent on the whims of the corporate behemoths they hate?
People don't want ever-increasing prices. Look at how the cable company jacks up subscription rates several times a year. Who wants that for all the software they run?
Network connections aren't reliable enough. Ask DSL users if they want their entire computer to turn into a doorstop every time the DSL is slow or out.
People don't want the upgrade treadmill. If you buy your software by subscription from an ASP, you get upgrades when they decide. And of course, the upgrades may break things, make your PC slower, or even outright fail to run. That's why people don't upgrade their OS, don't install new Windows patches, and don't upgrade their applications. They've been burnt before. If it ain't broke, they don't want it fixed.
Computers aren't fast enough. Thanks to the ever-increasing bloat of software, editing a text file today is slower than it was in 1987, when my 16MHz Atari ST system could smooth-scroll (pixel by pixel) at 64 lines per second running Tempus on a large soft-wrapped text file. My Linux box can't even seem to line-scroll that fast in vim. Hence, there's always a need to make PCs faster, and given a network computer, the easiest way to make it a shitload faster is by adding a hard disk, installing the software locally, and removing the network latency delays.
In short, the minor benefits of Network Computing don't outweigh the enormous costs and liabilities. It isn't going to happen in a free market. It only happens (sometimes) in business because PHBs impose it on everyone regardless of cost/benefit analysis.
Not Likely. (Score:5, Insightful)
However I'm not sure I would want any company to have that level of control over my desktop system. Not to mention having all of my apps and data held hostage to a subscription fee.
People have been predicting the death of PCs since PCs were invented, but it hasn't happened yet. Anybody remember when network computers were supposed to be the next big thing?
Ask IBM (Score:2)
They'll love it (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the only reason (Score:5, Informative)
Possible future, but a long way off (Score:4, Insightful)
However, the main problem I have with the authors point of view is that of a Modern World perspective. As evidence that this future is still many a generation away from becoming reality, we need only look at the Third World countries and witness the total lack of infrastructure in supporting such a society of high bandwidth and low local maintenance computing.
The local computer is a fast, simple, and easy way of getting the required (or needed/desired) computing power to the people in poorer nations without worrying about the HUGE commitment in upgrading or installing the infrastructure that we modern nations are beginning to take for granted.
So while we sit here behind our NATs, and use our computers while eating pizza and sipping on a latte, and think that the future is all silicon, we run the very real risk of not seeing the digital divide grow ever more quickly.
At some point in the future, our societies will have grown so far apart that computers will cease to be the "big" problems that we ultimately face.
Re:Possible future, but a long way off (Score:4, Insightful)
If a developing country gets the idea to build some communications infrastructure, they could easily and cheaply put in wireless or fiber connectivity, since there is usually no problem getting spectrum or right of way. After all, running regular phone service costs almost as much as running fiber. In my opinion, 20 years down the road the US will still be using cable and DSL while developing countries will have fiber to the premises.
Microsoft has nothing to fear (Score:3, Insightful)
One big reason this article is wrong: (Score:2)
How? (Score:3, Insightful)
This all seems to easy, how can MS fail and others succeed while in the same space, nobody would know the difference between a local peice of software or from an ASP?
People only know through what they are given, if the content providers stay the same and continue to recommend the same, then how can Open Source gain a foothold, even already its free!
Besides, MS may be slow but they are not stupid, they'll slowly adapt and we might be back at square one again.
I don't like it when the future is trying to be predicted, there are too many variables.
With Linux ... (Score:4, Interesting)
web based apps becoming very very popular/Active X (Score:5, Interesting)
At my company more and more things are moving to web based colabrative apps (Notes/ Bug tracking/ timecards..).
Active X was MS attempt to control this market by making web apps work only with internet explorer. Fortunetly it didn't catch.
Web mail is another web app that is astoundingly usefull and has driven this trend.
The main thing holding it back is web browsers are cludgy to develop real slick apps with. Javascript helps but.. Gmail is pretty decent.
Most people don't care what OS they are running if the web works and they can get what they want. Computer purchasers are very unloyal to brand names. It remains to be seen if they remain loyal to MS windows.
Re:web based apps becoming very very popular/Activ (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? Where have you been? I can't look at any type of business application without a dozen vendors tripping over themselves trying to come show me a "web-based" application that is in reality an ActiveX-based one. It's insane but no one except the Slashdot crowd seems to recognize that ActiveX applications are in fact Win32 applications framed inside Internet Explorer and that they provide none of the benefits one is normally looking for when considering true web-based applications. It didn't catch-on on the Internet at large but unfortunately, in intranet applications, ActiveX is doing very well.
Where have we heard this before? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's two, maybe three people, tops, and Verizon ain't one of 'em.
why is someone's blog on slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why is someone's blog on slashdot? (Score:2)
reputable industry source nor a respected figure in the IT industry
Like Paul Thurott or John Devorak?
There are increaingly fewer "reputable industry sources" or "respected figures in the IT industry". Just because something's on a blog (as onerous as that term is) doesn't mean it's not valid.
~jeff
Either he's insightful or he's not. (Score:4, Interesting)
In this case, I don't think the article has much depth to it - the main concept is appealing, but I don't see enough thought behind it to really win. But even so, I'd mod you -1 Flamebait :-)
BOfHAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, just like cable companies are looking to take over servicing my TV, and telcos want to get back into supporting any wires or devices inside the network junction box they installed 15 years ago outside my house
In fact, *no one* wants to be in the terminal/user support business. That business is always a loss leader, to sell other, profitable products/services under the same "trusted" brand. Even Red Hat's support service business is only sensible in combination with their customization and other service package offerings.
Let's face it: computers suck, users are incompetent, and everything's too difficult to "fix" - it's much more profitable to replace systems and ignore problems, while sending more and more infotainverts down the pipe to keep people paying. However, for those of us locked out of the ISP monopoly tier dominated by telcos and cablecos, we can compete in their shadow. Even more interesting than remote desktop or even server sysadmin is firewall admin. Not only can small operations scale up with automation and global 24h distributed coverage, but central admin in the modern Internet offers advantages against worms, viruses, and other problems. Verizon vs Microsoft isn't much of a probability in the bandwidth landscape. But the BOfHAA is a new threat to Computer Associates, and even IBM Consulting. Let's go get 'em!
Re:BOfHAA (Score:4, Insightful)
The real trend is is mobile devices, DRM, and cheap bandwidth to home servers at local centers of always-on P2P networks. The huger mass market of less sophisticated/tolerant users, and the peripheral attention offered by personal mobile devices mean the devices will be multimedia terminals with wireless networking. The media industry orientation towards DRM means they'll give away mobiles at a loss to sell their more scalable/profitable media products, while ensuring the terminals can't copy the media objects. While the whole network will become much more complex under the hood, the market will demand that it all "just works", like TV (IOW, when it doesn't work, there's nothing you can do about it but wait). That's why Microsoft is evolving into a media company (games, interactive "TV"), enforcing the consumption of their lower quality products by perpetuating the applications that they prefer/require to "play". So we're going in the direction predicted by this story, but along the way the changes will be much different. As will the opportunities, and chances we'll "finally" land somewhere else down the road.
The general purpose PC has had a surprisingly long window of existence. The rise in mobile devices (and their charms) means all devices will have to be "mobile", even if just around the living room. So we'll have general purpose interactive media terminals, which will replace general purpose computing. Of course those computing workstations will remain available, but largely only to professionals and hobbyists. They'll be more expensive, and, as outsourcing tech development continues, harder to find at all in the USA and Europe. Eventually "personal computers" will be like equestrian gear: still available to specialists around the world, but a quaint curiosity to the vast majority of "users", which will be most humans. The BOfH nation will be more connected than ever, but more thinly distributed around the entire world.
This article is right on target. (Score:2)
What people really want is a Small consumer gadget [about.com] that can check e-mail and browse the web, not a PC. Perhaps it would even work for corporate networks [cnet.com] in the place of PCs.
I bet even Sun Microsystems [cpg.com] might have some plans to dominate this market.
Yes, but (Score:2)
I can't wait (Score:5, Interesting)
Related to this, when is Linux going to get something like RDP? No, X11 isn't it. When you disconnect from X11, it blows away your desktop. VNC is closer, but boy does VNC suck compared to RDP. It's unbelievably slow. I know why it's slow, but that doesn't excuse the fact that it sucks.
Re:I can't wait (Score:5, Informative)
longer: I have a freebsd server that is up 7x24. it holds my 'state'. my desktop and all the windows (xterms, browsers, debug windows, whatever). its in my 'server room' which I allow to be a bit noisier and I can close the door off, etc.
in the living areas, I can use 'floating' laptops or a desktop in the living room. that one usually runs XP since XP talks well enough to its connected hardware (ethernet cards, video cards,
other advantage: I can have multiple viewers (even with write access) on at the same time. the laptop in the bedroom on wireless can see the same persistent desktop that the living room XP/gig-e client sees. I can enable power-saving on the desktops and laptops (works well in XP) and have the clients auto shutdown or hibernate after a timeout. I simply press the power switch and come back from hiber (very fast) and re-run vncviewer and bingo - my old (year old) desktop is back again. (I think most people have never ever had this experience of a persistent computer desktop that lasts in the months and even years).
I've been doing it that way for over 2 yrs now. works very very well. I get uptimes in the years for my 'desktop'. vncserver on freebsd is a GREAT server combo and is stable as it gets.
don't tell me vnc isn't the answer. everything I see and type is via a vnc connection (currently on a wireless xp laptop and having NO interface speed or lag issues at all. you wouldn't know you weren't actually local.)
Re:I can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)
The only area where thin clients can be useful is the corporate world where thousands of machines need the same software. But even there the situation will not stay the same in the long term as different software more and more permeates every corner of our lives (including professional lives), so the environment is no longer a homogenous setup of office + email + browser. Furthermore, everything that can be done using thin clients can be done just as easily using traditional computers if you are willing to accept the same limitations that NC imposes on you.
such silliness (Score:2, Insightful)
MOST users dont know what a system administrator IS to begin with - and those who do know that function enough to understand the value of it are the people who are going to be self sufficient.
PS3/IBM's Cell processor+Broadband (Score:2)
If people are given a choice between buying a $500-$1000 PC + $20, $50 or more/year for AV and other security subscriptions; or $300 for a PS3 or XBox2--that is a better gaming platform than all but the most expensive PC--and a
The Java box strikes again! (Score:2)
Also, sys-admin access-rights data for thousands of machines is oh-so-secure ISP databases? *shudder*
I'll believe it when I see it
-Thomas
This is a TERRIBLE idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Now imagine being forced to use THEIR choice of system in THEIR choice of configuration, with your data stored on THEIR server. Want to move or switch providers? Sorry. They've got your data. Want to install your favorite software? Sorry. Only their applications are allowed. Wishing for Office 2010? Sorry. They think Office 97 is good enough. Machine has a problem? Well, they'll have to send someone out at some point in the next 24 hours, and you'll have to wait at home for them, just like you do for cable.
And what makes you think that a cable company won't be vulnerable to all the attacks we have now?
All this would do is give us high prices, poor service, restricted choices, outside control of our data and usage, lots of ads, and little chance of improved security.
No thanks!
basic premise is correct (Score:2)
so yes, allow for the thin client (yes, that old idea) for most button pressers; and of course still allow regular computers for those who can handle it.
the idea that every grandma and technophobe will be able to secure their site is flawed. it will NEVER be that syst
Agree, but differently (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a good idea I think (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, such a system would need an opt out provision. I would not want my own personal use PC to be managed by anyone other than myself. I can imagine that when my kids got to a certain age they'd be allowed to use the "adults computer". I'd also be sure to make sure that, if my son or daughter developed an interest early on in IT and PCs other than just IM or music downloads that I'd give them access to an opt-out machine. Even with the risk of their being exposed to the dark side of the net, I feel it would be more important that they have a fully functional tool available to build their knowledge, if computers were their thing.
Some will say that the best way to control your kids internet access is to watch your kids. I agree, but, realistically, with the schedules we follow today combined with the nefariousness of the average teen boy in terms of finding ways to see naked chicks, dead people, etc., having the IT department of my ISP keep an eye on things would be a real blessing. Having the system prevent them from installing god knows what virus ridden dreck from the internet would save endless time spent in restoring systems, reformatting hard-drives, etc.
With the MPAA/RIAA lawsuites flying everywhere, as a potential parent, the last thing I want to find in my mailbox is a demand for hundreds of thousands of dollars because my daughter downloaded a Britany Spears song or two. (I blackly hate the RIAA but, as one guy on a budget, if they come after me, they win.) I know the risks and no ways to protect myself when using p2p networks, an average 10 year old, or an average 70 year old (my father just loves downloading movies) won't have a clue.
Microsoft in trouble? (Score:2)
I dont think so (Score:2)
As for this proposed business model, what is it that people are actually paying for ?, people can be pretty dumb but they rarely give their money away for no perceived gain. The only way it could possibly work is for the ISP to guarantee protection from viruses and spam, I can't see how they could do that
It's mine!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Sad news.... (Score:5, Funny)
Pressure Microsoft to Make Windows Hard to Manage? (Score:2, Interesting)
Does Microsoft invest in any bandwidth providers? Should future investments in this direction make us nervous?
What about the mono-culture problem? When a provider applies the latest patch and clicks the wrong button, will a million PC's get trashed? Who's going to visit all those
Bullcrap. (Score:5, Insightful)
The PC as we know it probably only has a decade or so left.
Boy am I tired of this old chestnut.
If anything, adding bandwidth or any other features or functionality will only serve to keep the PC around longer - the more it can do, the more reasons you have to have one. Your PC can now edit movies, be a mutlimedia station, a jukebox, a gaming console...and as it begins to compete in these new areas, devices that used to provide these services are going away. If anything is going away, it's your VCR player or your DVD player. Or your 5 CD changing stereo. Next, it's probably your TV.
And the PC can't be replaced in some ways. Exactly how are you going to program on your PS2? Ever tried surfing the web on an iPaq? The PC solves certain kinds of problems exactly perfectly, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
In fact, I used to work at an engineering firm that made StrongARM platforms for embedded Linux and WindowsCE. Our CEO's business strategy was that the "death of the PC has begun", and we were ready to step in and fill the void.
They're bankrupt now.
Ive been saying this for years (Score:2)
But in time, between people not wanting to deal with things, and having to lease even your OS, it will take place.. eventually.
It's not bad for them at all. (Score:2)
The basic assertion here is that there will be a rise of the Application Service Provider that will take the responsibility for application and OS purchase decisions away from the individual and give it to the ASP.
The company, we are to assume, is going to be smarter than the individual and will avoid Microsoft products. But this assumption is silly. Large organizations have already rushed into the arms of Microsoft, buying in to Windows, Office, Active Directory, Exchange, and IIS.
Centralizing the mark
Yes, but even higher bandwidth locally precludes.. (Score:3, Insightful)
However despite increasing bandwidth out to the Internet as a compelling force, equally powerful trends suggested the continued importance and popularity of the home PC. Most of these trends can be summed up as needing even higher bandwidth locally, as well as needing specific interfacing of other devices, both of which aren't likely to be reasonably handled by some form of thin client. For example, all the reasons to burn personalized CDs or DVDs. It is not likely that burning CDs or DVDs would happen straight over the Internet without some kind of fast local store (i.e. hard disk). Another is interfacing digital and video cameras and editing those results. Again it doesn't seem reasonable to build a thin client to interface these device just to ship the many gigs of data (particularly video) out over the Internet to a remote fileserver and, worse, to perform editing against the remote fileserver -- these applications, popular on the home front, pretty much dictate a home PC-like architecture with fast, large local file store.
Undoubtedly many others will come up, because the same kinds of advancing technology that permits higher bandwidths to the Internet, also provide even higher bandwidth needing applications locally. And the reason why thin clients have yet to take off among the general population is simply that hard disks are so cheap, so the difference between the cost of a PC and a thin client is very small and yet one gives up all the flexibility, etc. For many, this situation is likely to continue.
Actually the argument is rather similar to arguments for and against the future of distributable home entertainment media vs just using big pipes. Does anyone think that we won't have media like CDs, DVDs, HD-DVDs, PS2 games, etc in the future. Why not distribute all music and movies and video games via big pipes ? Why have a PS2 or Xbox or GC in the future, or an HD-DVD player ? Just use a thin client... Some of the same reasons why...
Bandwidth is probably *good* for MS (Score:3, Interesting)
If remote system administration is going to be a trend, I'm sure MS will be at the front. They'll either be there first or wait until a big player emerges and buy them out.
I don't know about anyone else... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Computer As A Freezer (Score:3, Interesting)
However, the applications a computer runs are very good and very important. Email, Web Surfing, some data/word processing are all terribly useful for the average person. If only the damned computer weren't in the way!
Palm has a really smart way to deal with that by limiting any interaction with the OS and making the App king. Plus having everything running all the time makes everything faster.
The smart money is on going BACK to mainframe type applications and computing. Java (etc) have been invented so what's the wait?
The PC is dead, bawk bawk! (Score:3, Insightful)
Aw, again?! It's died so many times already...
And so it begins again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft Wants Profit, Not Monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
That monopoly certainly helps MS rake in the money, but it is only a means to an end.
I'm very skeptical about any proposed PC-successor that doesn't allow people to keep their software on their hardware. Likewise, I doubt people will allow tomorrow's equivalent of Time Warner or Verizon to remotely admin their hardware: Would you believe them when they claimed they won't look at your data?
That said, if something does emerge to threaten the personal computer, my guess is MS will use a portion of those tens of billions of dollars sitting in its coffers to buy its way out of obsolescence.
Re:Microsoft Wants Profit, Not Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree 100% with the rest of your analysis.
Microsoft works very, very hard to maintain the monopoly, so much so that they have sacrificed profit to maintain the monopoly (think IE, XBox, MSN, comments about willingness to "knife the baby," etc). In so many ways, their profit is tied directly to their monopoly-- if the monopoly dies, their profit dies. The Microsoft administration must realize this.
Effectively, Microsoft's best way to maintain profits is to maintain the monopoly. It allows them to cut back development dollars (on IE, for instance) while still making a lot of money. They have only to plan for a 3-year upgrade cycle, and their profits are assured.
I judge and predict Microsoft's actions based on the idea they are trying to maintain a monopoly. So far, they have not let me down. The monopoly-oriented management model is useful, even if it isn't correct.
Re:Microsoft Wants Profit, Not Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Including IE with the OS, at no "extra" cost", was simply recognition of the fact that size of the market for selling a browser is effectively zero (or, no bigger than Opera's marketshare). Given the choice between trying to sell IE into a market dominated by the free Netscape browser, or to entice more Windows sales by bundling IE with the OS, MS made the choice to boost W
Fundamentally flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
First, there needs to be some receiver machine at the home end. A reasonable computer can be had for around $500 nowadays. Unless this subscriber machine can be had for less than $200, there is no incentive to move to this model.
Second, nothing is free. This service will be a subscription-based service. I think it would have had some bearing had people not been burned by subscriptions from other companies. Witness the cable companies and TiVo and how they've handled their subscriptions. Witness the cellphone subscriptions. Paying outrageous rates for using a computer won't succeed if there is no conomic reason to do so. People will sooner purchase Macintoshes.
Thirdly, there is the issue of control. You're dealing with people's data, and their private information. I will never relinquish control of my checkbook, nor my family pictures, nor anything else like that. Some people may be amenable to this, but many will not. The computer is a multimedia device now, and people have scads of personal data on their computers. It'll take a very convincing argument, and a company with a reputation for integrity to wrestle away that desire for control.
The PC as we know it will change, but I see that change moving more to a home entertainment/personal network than a service based machine. Witness the supposed death of the mainframe when the PC was released. It hasn't happened yet, and it's unlikely that mainframes will vanish overnight. Saying the PC will drastically change to a model where people aren't in control of their programs and their data is a prognostication that is unlikely to materialize.
Kids these days... (Score:4, Interesting)
Every decade or so, since the rise of the personal computer, we see some attempt to re-impose the rule of centralized systems, usually under the guise of 'easing the burden on end-users' but always including an increased financial burden on those same end-users. The simple economic facts are that computer power (by any measure: instructions per second per dollar, main-memory bytes per dollar, on-line storage bytes per dollar, etc.) has become so inexpensive that all the old reasons for centralized computing systems no longer apply (and haven't applied for at least 20 years). The only reason these new centralization schemes is to find some way to extract money from existing computer users, whether or not the users actually want the sevice being provided. The idea that people will willingly give up control of their own systems and pay for the privilage may be a wet dream for companies hoping to collect the money, but it doesn't sound like a very good business plan.
The solution to the increasing administrative burden on computer users is not hire someone to do the administration: instead, we need computers that actually reduce amount of administration required or make the task of administration markedly easier. This is what personal computers did 40 years ago, and it can be done again.
Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Dumb terminals and old fashioned transportation (Score:3, Insightful)
Comparing this to corporate IT is silly. A company is quite likely -not- to trust users to do the right thing, nor to keep their data safe, so they have one hell of an incentive to outsource. Individually however, it's all about privacy, even if said privacy is an illusion. People need to be able to go to bed at night, thinking their skeletons are safely tucked away in the closet. A cracker might very well have access to their data, but they don't know that, and stupid as it may be, most people would rather close their eyes to uncomfortable facts than to face them.
Why is it that people are dead set of driving around in huge wasteful individual vehicles, for example? It'd make so much more sense on the grand scale of things if everyone that could just used public transportation, wouldn't it?
IMHO, it has very little to do with the state of the PC or bandwidth, and a whole lot to do with human nature.
hold on a sec (Score:3, Interesting)
All that means local applications will outperform hosted apps. Given applications will always push the limits, the execution of most graphic apps, and apps that require more interaction than is possible through a terminal services screen, will always be slower from a remote station.
That and our tendancy to OWN everything onto our desktop, similar to getting satellite dishes than pulling a cable and being at the mercy of cable companies. If most desktops are laptops in the future, its hard to believe any procssing will be offloaded killing the mobolity of the laptop.
A little off topic, but: Which VNC? (Score:2)
Hell I've even started installing tight VNC on every computer I build for people know so I don't een have to bother to go around to them to fix (And for 2 people clean out there comp twice a week over vnc).
Which VNC are you using? OpenVNC? PCAnywhere? MS Terminal Server? Citrix Metaframe?
These range anywhere from just about free to catastrophically expensive.
[Oh - and which offers the best encryption/authentication?]