Slashdot Mirror
Why Microsoft Should Fear Bandwidth
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."
are you kidding? Microsoft would love this (and I think they've already tried). Just think, instead of all those pirated copies of Office, you would have to actually pay to use it from your "application provider"
Looks like the "the network is the computer" argument again. We're already past the twenty year mark of that prediction, I believe.
Some people may be happy with just a dumb terminal as it does reduce the maintenance headaches of running a pc.
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?
I think there is one thing that will make MS be happy with lots o' bandwidth - TV over IP. They own lots of patents in conjuction with it and started really developing after they realized that one monopoly (cable TV providers) doesn't like another (MS). Ignorance of the Internet by MS is so '90s - they had the money to make up for their ignorance.
"You need a license to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp." - Red Green
The future certainly seems to be heading that way.
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.
Sure, they MAY become ASPs (doubtful), but who do you think will supply the software these companies run to supply services to the users? Microsoft. They will make server licensing comparable to retain their current profit levels so nothing will change.
The continuing increase in WIFI speeds makes your dictinction between desktop/laptop moot.
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.
Jonathanjk.com
Show me the money, honey. I've been hearing this prediciton since, oh, before you were born. I've yet to see it come true. I will *NEVER* relinquish control of my computer to anyone I don't know on a first name basis and trust with my life.
That's two, maybe three people, tops, and Verizon ain't one of 'em.
There is nothing unique about Earthlink providing the same service. Indeed, Micro$oft has an advantage because its engineers wrote most of the applications running on the customer's computer, so the customer is more likely to buy system administration from Micro$oft instead of an ISP.
Also, customers would be wary of buying system administration from an anonymous company. It could be a Chinese company pretending to be an American one and would plant malware, trojan horses, and other crap on the customer's computer.
Customers would prefer Micro$oft because it is a known name.
Thats all fine and good, but from what I gathered, the article is saying that regular consumers who have no idea how to repair or maintain their computers will snatch the oppourtunity to have thier computer managed for them. They don't care if the software is not on their machine, so long as it works correctly. The same is true of most people's attitude toward government: as long as it works OK and it is semi-tolerable, they don't give a damn about improving the situation or worse, don't care about the government and how it runs at all when it is probably one of the strongest influences on their life.
thisnukes4u.net
This story is neither from a reputable industry source nor a respected figure in the IT industry. In fact, I can find no attribution at all. Putting this on slashdot is a total editorial botch. Not only does the hypothesis completely fall apart unde the enormous weight of logic, but there is not even anecdotal evidence to support it.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
" telcos and cable companies would be glad to take this [sysadmin] task from them [users]"
:P. In fact, those companies run as fast as they can from supporting terminal equipment, or the users attached to them: selling you the phone was a major judo flip of the consumer under 1980s telco "de"regulation. ISPs, whether voice, video, data or otherwise, are in the routing business, and little else. That link in the chain offers the least risk, lowest complexity, and most power in the entire system, therefore the highest profit over the longest time.
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!
--
make install -not war
"Most users have no desire to be the system administrators of their machines, and would gladly turn that task over to someone else for a nominal fee."
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.
Live in one of the red states, don't we? ;)
You don't want your whole computing experience to be controlled by one or two companies. You really don't. Let's look at the cable industry for an example. My local cable company charges $15/month just for the stations you get over the air, and forces you to use a converter box. A cable subscription with most channels (but no premium channels) is $50/month = $600/year! Plus, cable companies are renowned for terrible service and prices that go up 10% / year.
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!
Well, it makes sense from the standpoint that the user won't have to be bothered with annoying maintenance tasks like backing up their data. Given how few Windows users even have a firewall or any kind of malware scanning, having the ISP handle that would probably be an improvement (of course, if those same people ran a more secure operating system it would be an even bigger improvement.) That said, I wouldn't want all of my confidential documentation and source code residing on someone else's equipment. Bad idea. For that matter, I don't like the idea of anyone keeping track of what applications I run and for what purpose. Not to mention that with a National Security Letter government agents could access all of your files without having to break into your house where you would at least have the possibility of "accidentally" shooting one of them. Forget it. I'll keep my data to myself, thank you very much.
Ultimately it would just be another way for an ISP to justify sucking more money from each user in monthly fees.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I just love these retards that think they know what the future holds, and they're usually so impractical that it's funny.
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 as possible, they rarely come up with killer apps, and buying the next killer app could very well backfire. There are enough people that hate MS right now that if Apple got their shit together, they'd package cheap hardware and beat the living daylights out of MS. MS would survive on Office, simply because the whole world uses it, but OpenOffice might start to climb.
What you're likely to see in 10 years, people will be using "appliances". Hardcoded devices with the ability to run a browser, email client, some mild bookkeeping software, and multimedia software, along with games and subscription services. Every multimedia company for the past 20 years has been DYING to get to Pay-Per-Use. That's where the big dollars are. Most people, if the costs are low enough, are sheep-like enough to just fork out the dough and go along with it if that's the easiest solution.
No one, and I repeat, NO ONE! will want to trust the phone company or anyone else with system administration. Most people have too many personal records, taxes, email, p0rn, etc. to be trusted to someone other than themselves, or possibly a close friend or relative.
I just don't buy the "bandwidth is going to kill MS."
A real life comparison could be easily made here.
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.
I believe that some company will give away the hardware so people will sign up for their service just like cell phones today. The people who do will not have to worry about the hardware as it will be like cable box today if it breaks it will be replaced for free. They will have access to billions of dollars of software and video for a monthly fee. The computer will have zero maintenance and zero worry so it will attract a huge amount of people.
Not everybody here speaks english as a mother tongue. Cut them a bit of slack and don't be such a twat.
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.
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 someone wants to connect their playstation 2, technically, I'm not supposed to help them (but honest to god, no matter how weird the machine is that someone wants to connect, it's always 100 times easier than windows is).
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.
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...
Hardly; new technology has never depended on everyone having access, only a majority.
I really don't understand what laptops or desktops have to do with either.
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.
Then you just configure Firefox to use your real proxy (or none if you think you don't need one, but having one may be more secure).
640K, 640K, 640K, 640K.....
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...
A) It's not normal for your computer's configuration to get screwed up unless you're messing with it.
... whoever is doing this is obviously not meant to ever use anything even remotely involving computers. At most I would expect someone to try reinstalling windows every year, and thats only if they have installed so much stuff as to simply not want to deal with removing it all. I have a win2k install going for about 3 years now, and a winXP that I have just done a reinstall on ( to repartition ) that was good for 2 years previous. I dont know what all these people are doing to their computers, even my parents generally dont fubar up theirs until a year or two down the line.
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.
I dont think what computers are able to do has any bearing on this.
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.
Do you seriously believe that the majority of the customers would be willing to pay for 3-4 computers instead of one? A cheap PC costs 200-300$ today (without a monitor) and the software can be as cheap as you like. There is no way home users would be interested in an expensive setup like you have with no benefits apparent to them.
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.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
As users don't want the headacke of maintenance, it is not the bandwidth that will help them, but a full featured Knoppix CD or DVD. Most apps dads mums grandparents need are on it. You need something special, download a special version.
It started as a nice trial CD concept and that how it will realy damage microsoft.
People Try and like it more and more.
And they can always switch back, but most people I know installed it in the end as it was way better and safer.
And it is free.
There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
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.
"Active X was MS attempt to control this market by making web apps work only with internet explorer. Fortunetly it didn't catch."
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.
You are forgetting that even with tons of bandwidth, connections still drop out from time to time. Users will not be happy when their session and possibly data is lost for this reason. Application and Media Service Providers will have a huge market to exploit in the coming years but this will by no means replace the local desktop. Being able to work on data locally without fear of loosing your work because of a loss of connection that occurs at the drop of a hat is paramount. Microsoft knows when the market it moving away from it's ideals. It may take them a year or two but they will only adapt their products to better suit the users [said] desire for hosted applications. (After all, they are the borg :-P)
But I WILL be keeping at least one personal computer for the rest of my life. I don't care what new "application service" system they come up with. I like things to be mine, and I like to control them.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
in an office environment, I think this has some serious potential. But not with the ISP holding the reins.
If the server is local to the company they control the data, and the app choices. Users dont have to deal with installs, or backups and etc.
I spend way too much time fixing peoples computer at the office. Clueless users have way too much control over their machine. they screw their work tool beyond comprehension, resulting in mass loss of productivity.
It's worse when some people use a laptop. ie, they bring their home computer to the office. The boss think it's great, because his data is always at hand so he can even work from home, but in truth, he brings his home computer problems to the office for me to fix.
If the ISP is the one to control, it has no value whatsoever. We lose too much control and we end up having to pay more for it.
We should have been
So much more by now
Too dead inside
To even know the guilt
subject says it all.
The RIAA is in big trouble right now from P2P and all they can do is wave a dead chicken at it. The MPAA is following down the same road that the RIAA is right now. Now, when the masses are given a choice as to exactly what they want to watch, when they want to watch it, without FCC interference, and DRM ultimately failing to control the inevitable doom of the dinosaurs, then we'll be looking at a much different world. Nobody is going to want a computer that's really only a TV set in disguise.
For the sake of the future, let's not turn back the clock and commit to what the old timers had to contend with back in the Stone Ages with dumb terminals and mainframe timesharing systems. We wouldn't even have great technologies like Linux if everyone had to contend with that kind of archaic operating environment.
Second, while wireless speeds do continue to increase, there are hard physical limits on the throughput, and only one spectrum, mostly already allocated for various purposes. While there may be some reallocation, this will mostly just keep per-user bandwidth more-or-less where it is now. Moore's law applies tollerably to many aspects of system performance, until the physical limits get close. But wireless technology has been working on those limits for a long time, just not from a computer standpoint.
And if you don't believe the impact of those limits, tell me: which do you watch more of these days, broadcast television... or cable TV?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
is commodization over time. FOSS is just the software version of that.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
"The PC as we know it probably only has a decade or so left."
Aw, again?! It's died so many times already...
So many doomsayers over the years have talked about how PCs are going to radically change in the near future and it has yet to come to pass. PCs won't change that much (in the terms that this article speaks of) until there is actually a need. Right now there is no outstanding need adn let's be honest, what ISP wants to take on more tech support roles?
Microsoft wants profit, not monopoly. Predictions and wish-fulfillment fantasies premised on the notion that the goal of of MS is, first and foremost, to preserve its effective OS monopoly, are wrong.
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.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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.
Whenever someone starts talking about how the future will be, I always look closely at the premises that the person uses to extrapolate possible future events. Without accurate premises the chances of coming to an accurate conclusion are small.
.NET technology. A world where everything we do gets properly metered and billed. A world where the user owns or better yet leases a Microsoft "box" that runs Microsoft .Net applications sold as services.
The author makes a couple of premises:
1.Bandwidth will become almost unlimited.
2.This unlimited bandwidth will make the operating system irrelevant.
With enough investment I believe that bandwidth could be greatly increased and provided to everyone so I'll accept his first premise for now. However, he makes the statement:
"In a world of unlimited bandwidth and remote applications, the operating system doesn't matter, and there's no lock-in. In such a world,"
I have a problem with this assertion. Every application must run under some kind of architecture. Even remote applications. The only way around this from the client side is to execute all applications on a remote computer and use some kind of dumbed down terminal to display the results.
Even if bandwidth increases as the author suggests, the computing power needed to remotely run all applications for all customer's would take a quantum leap in computer power that I don't see coming any time soon.
If rather than running the applications remotely they are run on the client then the operating system once again becomes important and all the compatibility issues that Microsoft is counting on to maintain there monopoly come into play.
You then enter a world much like what Microsoft wants via its
The author makes a very good point that the average person doesn't have the technical skill needed to properly maintain a complex computer system nor do they wish to learn such skills. As a geek, the though of turning control of my hardware over to a third party is unpleasant. I suppose, however, that non-geek types will be unaware of all of the ramifications and with an effective marketing campaign may blissfully do so. But turning over ones hardware is a very different thing from turning over ones sensitive information. Even non-geek types are becoming uncomfortable with this. So, we are back to some kind of local storage and local operating system.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
IF this happens it would probably sound the death knell of p2p. When all computers, applications, and files are running/located from the ISP's computer, the ISP would be free to delete copyrighted material, block ports, delete p2p applications, etc. The ISP could also do whatever else it wanted. It could remove/censor offensive websites. It could set up filters... All kinds of things. The internet wouldn't be free anymore. There would be no more reason to use it...
Yes, most people would benefit greatly from having their system administration done by someone else. They don't know how to secure their boxes, or how to fix them when something goes wrong, and yet they insist on hosting their applications locally. Confounding, isn't it?
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.
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 lesson they wanted you to take is too ludicrous to accept, so what you learned is that the whole concept is senseless.
That's not an unreasonable conclusion if all you look at is the way IP is implemented today. In fact, if you're not a content company, it's probably the *only* reasonable conclusion of a non-historical analysis.
If you can take a step back, though, and look at the theory rather than the implementation, you can see that it makes a lot of sense and, in fact, is a fundamentally good idea, if implemented correctly.
First, it's clear to anyone who thinks about it for 30 seconds that intellectual property, whether it be copyrights, patents or what have you, is a completely artificial construct. Ownership of physical objects is a very natural idea, arising directly from the fact that a given object can only be in one place at one time. The rules of ownership that we've developed over millenia are definitely artificial, but they were developed because objects have this inherent property of "scarcity". Having a formalized system of rules keeps us from having to constantly fight to protect our things, or worry about them disappearing regularly.
Ideas and expressions are utterly different from physical objects in this respect. If I have an idea and I tell it to you, I don't lose it. In fact, I *gain* by giving away my ideas, because my ideas will spark more ideas in others, which they may share back.
So, while society must have a system of ownership rules for physical objects in order to have a measure of stability needed for progress, there is no obvious corresponding need for a system of ownership rules for ideas and expressions. In fact, it seems counterproductive.
But it's not (if done right).
Why? Because absent a system of ownership rules, individuals have a greater incentive to keep their particularly good ideas to themselves, in order to obtain some measure of advantage from having them. And they have an incentive to limit the distribution of their particularly good expressions to those who will compensate them for them.
The purpose of the artificial construct "intellectual property", then, is to provide ways to make more high-quality ideas and expressions available to everyone, so that everyone can build upon them. That's a good thing.
So, we create a sort of social contract between society as a whole and the originators of ideas and expressions. At its simplest, this contract is something like "In exchange for publishing your work and eventually giving up all control over it, we will enforce for you a temporary and limited measure of artificial control." The contract must be a balancing act, but it is definitely NOT a balance between benefits to society and benefits to authors, as it's often incorrectly described. Instead, it's a balance between benefits to society and damage to society. It's all about the good of society, and not at all about the good of the author (much less the conglomerate who has purchased the work of the author). Of course, in every workable formulation the author must benefit, but that's an emergent property, not a goal.
Consider copyright in its original context: The printed word. Authors in a world without copyright have basically two choices: they can turn their work loose on the world and have basically no control whatsoever over it, or they can carefully limit its distribution, using contracts to make sure that they retain complete control.
So, the idea of c
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.