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."
when cars fly.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
We've heard this how many times so far? The 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.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
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"
No one has the right to run my computer NO ONE I SAY. If centurytel came down here to my house and said that if you are going to use our DSL then you have to let us manage your computer. Well there phone box would be removed from this house via shot-gun.
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
For those who didn't read the article, the reason why Microsoft should fear bandwidth is that control of the computers will be turned over from the home user to a remote company. That is a good enough reason in its own right, but there are other reasons for MS to fear high-bandwidth connections. People stuck on a dial-up are less likely to be able to download Linux and other OSS. The propogation(sp?) rate of viruses, worms and other malware greatly increases because always-on connections spread them constantly - and quicker, which helps to highlight weaknesses in Windows.
http://unelite.freelinuxhost.com - Rock/Scissors/Paper and RPGs shouldn't mix.
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.
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
we can boot the whole OS from the net with ease.
The popularity of web based apps (I've sold a couple for small offices) is astounding. Install one place and go. LAMP (Linux Apache Mysql Php) or java (JBOSS) makes this very convienient. Only one machine to maintain vs many installs across multiple computers. Of course if the one server fails....
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.
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.
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.
I've heard people say things like this before... oh, you just wait, when somebody invents a fantabulous operating system and gives it away for free, THEN Microsoft will come tumbling down. Just another one of those craaaazy-talkers.
" 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
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.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
"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.
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 = $600/year! Plus, cable companies are renowned for terrible service and prices that go up 10% / year.
Now imagine being forced to use THEIR choice of system in THEIR choice of configuration, with your data stored on THEIR server. Want to move or switch providers? Sorry. They've got your data. Want to install your favorite software? Sorry. Only their applications are allowed. Wishing for Office 2010? Sorry. They think Office 97 is good enough. Machine has a problem? Well, they'll have to send someone out at some point in the next 24 hours, and you'll have to wait at home for them, just like you do for cable.
And what makes you think that a cable company won't be vulnerable to all the attacks we have now?
All this would do is give us high prices, poor service, restricted choices, outside control of our data and usage, lots of ads, and little chance of improved security.
No thanks!
M$ will have problem not because of the ISP will replace them, but because people will easily download software, and they will nolonger have as much the distribution advantage as of today (interm of bundling). If downloading OpenOffice takes 3 seconds, then users would much more likely to download it. Ofcourse, computers must also be much faster to have it install in couple seconds, and start up quicker. If not, then M$ stil have the advantage of being more seemingly integrated.
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.
I don't see, even basic computer users, wanting to give up local control of their computers. My IT department is looking to roll out a Terminal Server as a way of saving IT budget. This will run the OS and applications on Thin Clients from a centralized Terminal Server. Many of the users immediately balk at losing control of their local computer. Even those who aren't very computer literate. It is just a normal human reaction to someone taking away control. Into this add the current distrust of anything being done over the internet. How many people do you know who refuse to do "X" over the internet? With "X" being: home banking, shopping with a credit card, give out personal info, etc. I know quite a few and they are mostly the less informed users. I understand what an SSL encrypted connection is and basic internet security where as average users don't. This entire concept just goes against too many facets of basic human nature to take off. In my opinion people would rather have a spyware infested mess of a computer of their own that allow some one from outside to take control away from them
"We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. " Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
I just heard some sad news on slashdot - the Personal Computer will be found dead in ten years time. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss the PC - even if you didn't enjoy its work, there's no denying its contributions to slashdot culture. Truly a global icon.
If service providers offered configuration management services, would they then pressure Microsoft to, when adding features, make those features more amenable to provider-based management rather than end user based management?
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 homes? Will grandpa have to wait until Microsoft and the provider duke it out in court before someone drops by to re-install Windows?
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
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.
Although I agree with some of the premises of this article, I think he has completely missed the boat on the reasons for it.
First off, we can already see the movement he describes. How many ISP's (particularly the big ones like AOL and NetZero) now advertise e-mail filtering and virus blocking? Microsoft has done such a poor job on it's software that ISP's had to move agressively in this direction or risk having all their mail servers and bandwidth pipes melt down!
In fact, Microsoft has done such a poor job that one is tempted to think that it couldn't possibly be sheer incompetence, it had to be part of some strategy on Microsoft's part. I think it might have been. Microsoft doesn't want secure computers! I think that, in the beginning, the entire security issue was going to be used to force a move to Microsoft's Palladium (or whatever they call it today!) and move final control of every computer into Microsoft's hands.
But their strategy has backfired! Now that ISP's are taking responsibility from their users for running virus and spyware controls, how much of a leap is it for them to start providing application software, also? They had to upgrade their servers to provide extra horsepower for these applications, how much of a stretch is it to use that same horsepower to provide server-based applications, too? And I think Microsoft sees that danger now, though maybe a little too late. Their recent acquistion of virus software and announced plans to offer their own virus control software is, IMHO, an attempt to wrest control back from the ISP's and return it to desktop software that Microsoft controls.
This also is doomed to failure. Microsoft can do no better at releasing patches and updates to their virus software than they can to their OS and applications software! Many, many times in the last 5 years, I have proven to myself and the companies I work for that intelligent software at the firewall and at central mail servers can be used to protect Windows software from dangerous viruses, suspicious websites and nefarious e-mail attachments easier and faster than Microsoft's patch and update cycle. ISP's can do (and now are doing) this, also.
In short, I believe that Microsoft has done this to themselves, first through shoddy QA and then through deliberate mishandling of security issues. They should be allowed to reap exactly what they have sewn!
If people were happy with thin clients way more of them would be using Linux already. I talk to lots of people who are tempted by the stability and lack of fuss in maintaining Linux but don't convert because they want to play games. We're a long way from a good game being playable on a thin client.
Custom, hands-free Linux installs. Instalinux
They could start leasing the OS to you as well. And if you dont pay up, ( and stay online .. ) then your pc no longer even boots.. It just sits there, waiting for the TFTP server...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...of thwe two ways of computing and networking more than one or the other. For a lot of purposes, the way things are now, for special apps you only use once in awhile and are bandwith hungry, then a remotely run app. And we also have to contend with convergence in the area that is experiencing more and faster growth, and that is the cellphone/pda market. Consumers are replacing those devices a lot faster than either desktops or laptops, and the price is dropping faster when you factor in features in these small wireless computer thingees people tote around. You can't even hardly call them just phones any longer.
Next compare cost of consumer bandwith as a ratio to cost of IC chips in general. With printible ink based circuits coming online in a big way soon, it will be just so cheap to always have an advanced system that people would still want "the power" of having their own "computer" as opposed to someone elses computer.
Now, I could see your premise taking off more IF a lot of the major players and governments combine to end the "wild wild west" phase of the internet and require a good deal more in the way of identity and accountability online, and chop the internet up into subscription models a la AOL type "nets" where the consumers would pay for a package of apps, games, delivered on demand entertainment and information resources, etc., and in competetion with other nets, much like you buy a cellphone package today or satellite or cable TV package, etc. But that's a big wild card. I know they would *like* that as it would mean a guaranteed revenue stream, it remains how much lobbying and political pressure the big guys can put to it to institigate such profound changes.
Although the personal "system administration" angle is quite complex for the average user, automatic updates that can be pushed to them along with more secure design are the obvious trends now, so I see that problem getting easier in the future. People who want such systems have them now, and word of mouth and pressure from business desktop deployment will make it trickle down to the home owner level.
And there's one more thing to consider, and that is the "blue collaring" of the personal computer. They are merely little machines that take nothing more than a simple screwdriver to construct, because of this, we have the population now with millions of "shade tree mechanics" who are as comfortable with computer repair as one or two generations ago were as comfortable with a car tune up. It is no longer the leet high paid IT professional locked away in obscure academic or corporate R&D labs who can muck around with computers, either on the hardware or software side, it has become ubiqituous across the board in the general population. As computers have grown more complex and "hard", they have also become much easier. A person now can take a dozen boxes and connect them wired or wirelesssly, boot from a pre made Cd and have a mini super computer up and running in no time, and that is at the *hard* side of personal computing. One decade ago that would have required some pretty advanced skills, a lot of money and some pretty good luck to pull off. Single system admin has now become mostly a no brainer with the proper operating system and just a scosh of forethought, and it has the potential to be automated a LOT more. And with huge RAM becoming more and more common, you could see just RAM images of the OS and apps being the norm to run in,not hard drive based, and any major disaster being easily recoverable then, just poof it away and reinstall from known good, as simple as popping in a disk for a few moments, or as you point out, from the network. After playing around with various live cd based distros you can see the potential there, both in ease of use and in security and in administration.
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 :-)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
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...
The ignorance of this news item astounds me. Thin-client/server architecture is nothing new; it's been in use for well over a decade. Such architecture allocates presentation to the end-user on the client side, and application processing and data management on the server side. This is essentially what the article is talking about. However, I find the fact that the author believes Microsoft to be completely adverse to distributed computing and remoting of applications to be somewhat offensive. The author clearly lacks a solid background on subject.
.NET Framework (of which the framework/base class library is a subset of the new WinFX API, which replaces Win32, and will be the defacto API for Window Longhorn) has integrated support for object-level remoting built directly into the language runtime. Standards like XML and SOAP are put at the forefront. Web-services aren't something just tacked on as an afterthought, they're given importance in the .NET world. And I think that Microsoft is finally learning not to twist such standards, they realize the impact it can have on developers.
Sure, Microsoft certainly may not have been involved with the industry push towards distributed computing initially. But over the last decade, they caught onto it. They became involved with the OMG (Object Management Group) and the introduction of CORBA (Common Object Request Brokerage Architecture). Later, they created DCOM (Distributed Component Object Model). As web-services and standards like XML and SOAP began to surface, they two became supported (albeit, perhaps reluctantly at first).
The
Of course, only the future can tell whether or not Microsoft's Windows family of operating systems will survive the impending ubiquity of thin-clients. Or whether thin client/server architecture will be embraced by the masses.
Regardless, I don't believe Microsoft is fearful of bandwidth. I think they're embracing it. And as far as I know, GNU/Linux isn't any further ahead of Microsoft, in terms of technology, when it comes to this type of architecture.
These also support RDP and VNC protocols by converting to the compressed X protocol, which also gives bandwidth gains over the raw RDP/VNC. Check out this description of the technology.
Recent versions of Knoppix live-CD include the NoMachine client and FreeNX server, making it easy to test it out.
Andrew Yeomans
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.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
If MS keeps behaving the same way they have been, they'll welcome more bandwidth. Look at XP product activation. People have pretty much put up with it. That is a step down the slippery slope of losing control of your own personal machine.
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.
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)
"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
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.
I took your approach initially as well. I went crazy building web apps and people loved it. Built it on a subscription service so everything was on my servers and not at their local office.
.Net applications can auto update themselves so there is no maintenance and only a "single server" to maintain. With web services data transfer is incredibly easy and the .Net application blocks make everything even easier.
But now I'm reverting back to desktop based because of external hardware requirements (barcode readers, picture scanners, thermal printers, etc.). Also, responsiveness of the application and offline connectivity are major factors (some businesses run off of modems or shoddy internet connections.)
On top of this, Smart clients (not rich client or thin client, but smart clients) are much better than the web based approach. With
Lastly, I can cut down on my server farm expenses because it moves the processing from my server to the client for searching, processing reports, etc.
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.
I say this all the time. I used to believe everyone should have a computer, then they started calling me and I quickly realized very few people should have a computer.
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?
This
"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"
Increasing bandwidth? Great, except that our beloved telecom chaps seem to regard the concept of "always on" computing as the spawn of satan. It seems that if you actually buy into "always on", they'd prefer it if your always on computer only used a couple of meg a day or so. Forget about backing up your PC to a remote box on a regular basis, or something like that :)
... 'cos our telcos are very keen on taking it away from ya :)
The introduction of caps on broadband (1GB a month, 15GB a month, xGB a month whatever) doesn't really gell with their advertising (yay, watch all the movies you like! Videophone your parents! Send your buddy streaming video from your wedding) and yet they will insist on it.
So I'm not too worried about increased bandwidth
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!
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.
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.
Check out Who Eats the Energy? study. A HDD eats about 2-3 Watts when in use and 0.5 Watts when idle. A wireless card eats 1 Watt in base idle mode (less than in power saving mode) and 2-3 when transmittin/receiving. With a network computer it would be working 100% of the time, while a HDD would be mostly idle. So your assumption is not true. Also note that notebook power consumption in that study was 11-16 Watts in total, so switching to network computing mode can decrease battery life as much as 10-25%.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
The internal bandwidth of machines will always be faster than the externel pipes. The cpu - memory speed will always be faster than your connection to the Internet.
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.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky