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.
" 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
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.
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.
Hardly; new technology has never depended on everyone having access, only a majority.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.