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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 ----
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
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
"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.
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.
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...