Slashdot Mirror
Cheap Solid State Computers Could Kill Microsoft
Eh-Wire writes "This is an interesting point made by a Clayton Hallmark on IndyMedia out of Argentina. He predicts that cheap Asian computing appliances with an Open Source Operating System on a chip will be the ultimate MS killer. References to the US$220 Mobilis out of India suggest the begining of newer, more powerful, and cheaper things to come. Mr. Hallmark also points to the success of the Wal-Mart cheap PC as proof the end is near for proprietory software. Overall an in interesting and thought provoking read."
Last time I checked th 50 billion in their pockets could keep Microsoft running for 30 years without making a single dime.
Agreed, very irritating the way that people assume that Computer == PC == Windows. Seeing software labeled as available for "PC" is particularly irritating, since I'm running a PC, but without windows it's an entirely different platform.
James P. Barrett
Knocking out that sort of company can't be done with a single thrust (like a cheap computer).
For example, with that sort of money on hand, I recommend they buy Intel (or AMD) and Seagate, then almost give the CPUs/disks away - make the whole box a commodity. TCO drops and everyone can afford MS software. The software becomes the key factor again. MS continue to extend their protocols to ensure non-interaction (as they constantly do now).
Give me a solid state PC WITHOUT harddisk (now that should drop the price a little). Give it some flash for local settings. Hook it up to the net and use GMAIL, a webversion of Picasa, and let me use some of those 2 Gbytes to store wordprocessor documents. It would be good enough for my mother, and no virus/worm/spyware on earth would be able to get to it. Hell, it wouldn't need a firewall or AV. Combine it with a flatscreen which I can also use as TV. How much would that cost?
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Why so often the discussions about who/what will be the MS killer? Surprisingly, these stories always somehow assume that MS will stand completely still in progress/development until this holy grail hits the market.
Does it really matter anyway? Do we want microsoft gone? Let's say there is no microsoft anymore from this very day on. Does the industry improve? Try not to respond emotionally, but think about it.
it's difficult to market a very cheap computer when there is a $30 to $80 Microsoft tax per machine.
It's in the nature of things that electronics approaches zero cost over time (I've got a $5 calculator that has more features than the $100 one I bought five years ago.) MS can't follow hardware down in price without affecting profits.
It's the nature of things that the status quo always changes, given long enough. But I do agree that the modern so-called MS-Killers aren't anything of the kind.
(I'm a long-term Linux user thinking of switching to a mac soon - and my non-technical friends have mostly been converted oover to Linux or MacOS at this point - but I don't think it's likely to happen to everyone anytime soon)
James P. Barrett
[Rant]
My old Toshiba MSX (1.0) booted within seconds. Loading 64Kb of word processing software from tape took a little longer; but you could stick in ROM cartridges and be playing instantly at a blazing 3.5Mhz.
So a PC look a like that gets me working after just pressing the "ON" button and doesn't have a dumb "SHUT DOWN" sequence (power off should be good enough) gets my money.
At the moment I just never turn a PC off anymore so that I have the ability to do things when I want them without having enough waiting time to boil a kettle of water.
[/Rant]
I hate to break it to you, but it's not your money. It's a gamble, you're not assured anything.
I love to break this to you Mr Ballmer: It sure isn't your money, and you're fired.
If you've already gone through with the acquisition of Intel then I'm putting the Intel guys in charge of the whole operation. Like you they have a history of making money and unlike you they 1) arestill making money right now 2) don't appear to have gone completely insane.
The latest innovation guru is Clayton Christensen. He has studied several industries to try to find out why market dominant companies fail. He found that they usually succumb to 'disruptive' technology. A smaller competitor enters a small unimportant part of the market and slowly takes over because the larger company is stuck with an inappropriate 'value network'. Open source is such a disruptive technology.
See: The Innovator's Dilemma, Cristensen, Clayton.
Most people do not remember the days that there used to be computers desiged for home use, the likes of Sinclair, Amiga, ST and so forth. In the 80's they used to be the majority of the computers produced. But they failed to compete with price and development with PC clone makers. Now we are in the situation that we have computers designed solely for accountants and managers where the software is actually completely divorced in terms of design from the hardware, in short the mess that everyone knows that is microsoft. Only brave survivor is Apple (they should own something as they invented the personal computer) but they are for media and high end home users, not aimed at mass marked (I am an OSX user by the way).
So why should the mass market, the home users, use systems designed solely for accountants and managers that were retrofitted for home use? What we need is a computer that have been desiged from ground up for home use with hardware closely designed with software. In short a mass market Apple. Linux could be and has been shown to be the operating system for this dream as it is inexpensive, well supported and customzable as it has been shown in cunsumer products as some DVD players and TiVO style boxes.
Hope we have real home computers comming back soon, has been a while.
RiscOS computers (previously called Acorn computers) have had the OS on a ROM for the last 16 years, but it doesn't stop you from running Linux on it.
In the UK it is already legislated that you can't mess with your hardware, and trying to mod a PS2 can land you in jail. You make a good point about the xbox, even though they failed, but if a 3rd party is making the machine then they don't have much incentive to lock it to Windows unless bribed by M$.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
I saw a report on TV over the weekend that said software in China was 90% pirated, and that up until a little while ago, maybe even still, i'm not sure, illegal copies of windows were being used in the Beijing city government. They also state that less people in America, and Canada, have much lower rates of pirating. I really don't think this is true. Maybe they have less rate of total programs pirated, because most NA computers come bundled with a good set of software. But I would still say that 90% of computers, in homes, have pirated software on them. Which really is the issue. Maybe they aren't pirating all their software, but they still don't feel like paying for software. Unless it comes preinstalled on the system, they aren't going to be paying for it. I also believe its harder to monitor in NA because you can't really check what software is installed on most peoples computers. In Asia, they sell it on the street corners. So you can kind of compare those numbers, to the number of licenced copies bought. In NA, nobody buys pirated software, they get it off a friend, who downloaded it from the internet.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
And it is amazing that virtually no one seems to have noticed.
It's also somewhat confusing that most people assume that every PC is IBM-compatible. There was a very good reason why in the early days of the IBM PC, programs weren't said to run on a "PC" but on an "IBM compatible".
I'm pretty sure that both the Apple Macintosh and the Commodore 64 qualify as a personal computer. They're computers and they're personal. Bang.
I have started using "IBM compatible" to describe IA32 compatible computers again. Maybe it will show some people that a personal computer is not universally defined as an IA32 box running a 32 bit Windows.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Don't be; MS is losing the embedded market. Check out this picture of the current market:p g
http://linuxdevices.com/files/article056/vdc_28.j
Linux is at 25% and growing. All of the Windows versions together give 24%, and not one of them on their own tops 10%. This is down from a total of a 33% marketshare from 5 years ago.
So Linux already is the Market Leader in the embedded space. And if it keeps growing like it has, MS will just have a fraction of the sales. Sort of like how VxWorks has gone from a 35% to a 12% marketshare over the past 5 years.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
Two observations:
1. Should cheaper hardware become available, MS will make it legal. Er, MS will make their OS run on it, this insta-slaughtering the other OS.
2. You still have to get applications running on it to interest anyone but a handful of techies. Again, in addition to porting Windows, MS has the backup option of porting their apps to the new OS, thus turning it into a cash cow for them. IIRC, MS earns more per Apple sold than per PC.
So this is slaying Microsoft just how again? (Note that refusing to port their apps to Linux is slowing adoption among hoi polloi.)
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Although Queen of England and the Queen of Canada is the same person, the role of monach for both realms are independent and however unlikely, can be filled by different people.
For example, if Charles decides he wants to be a Roman Catholic, he would lose his ability to be King (Since the Monarch is the head of the Church of England [Anglican/Episcopalian])*, he/she cannot be of a different religion. Since Canada does not have a state religion, and a Charter of Rights that bars discrimination based on religion, it is possible. Canada could, if it wanted to, follow a different path than that of the UK.
Is it worth the government's time, effort and headache to do something as silly as this? No.
---
* The Act of Settlement, 1701 (UK) bars a Roman Catholic from being King or Queen.
PS. I am not a lawyer, I don't want to be one. I won't recommend one either,
I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.