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$220 Mobilis out of India suggest the begining of newer, more powerful, and cheaper things to come. Mr. Hallmark also points to the success of the Wal-Mart cheap PC as proof the end is near for proprietory software. Overall an in interesting and thought provoking read."
The end of M$ has been foretold ever so often, more often than I would care to remember. But nothing has happened as of yet, that would pose a significant threat to them. Before you go about how xyz could kill M$ - just ponder for a moment, how much cash M$ has in their pockets - they are not immediately threatened by anything - and they HAVE the kind of money to sit out minor glitches and/or buy them the neccessary time to re-adjust (or just throw humongous amounts of money at the problem to overcome it). And even if someone goes for the cheap PC option, as long as large companies aren't switching over to these devices, I guess the PC will remain a strong seller (just think about all the parents buying PCs for their kids to play with - while knowing they have a machine they can also do their regular work on)...
... "could" have ended the MS monopoly - when they were released, they were faster than PCs, and cheaper; and you could get good software for them, too - still, they didn't make it because they never became widely accepted in the commercial market.
The likes of Atari ST / Amiga /
M$ is not going to be "killed" any time soon - the most realistic chance there is, is that they will eventually be (financially) ground down far enough for them to no longer be able to react quickly enough to save their own hide. But that is most likely still quite a few years away - and it depends on there being enough serious outside threats.
Also, it would be more important to engage them on more fronts - if they are only in a skirmish with google over the search engine, their income will more than pay for that. If there were more (and different) fresh new competitors to emerge in different markets where M$ is a player (or sees that the market is too important for them to neglect), that could hurt them - but a single issue (the early browser wars; search engines now; cheaper computing platforms in the future) most likely won't be enough.
(And - no - the "new browser wars" I won't even count as a secondary issue - M$ already has the expertise to deal with that - it will cost them money, but it isn't something new they have to worry about - they need to be challenged on new frontiers - just look how long it took for them to catch up with netscape in the first place; and I would be prepared to bet that google is going to last for a few years yet, before M$ can kill them off - it will still be a while since M$ still need to build up a good deal more expertise in this market.
Since you are reading this on a computer, you are a slave to MS and you should care. /sarcasm/ Yes, I care deeply.
(switches screens on Linux system)
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
It's a nifty technology which allows a chip to be written to as well as read from, but remain persistant in the manner of a ROM. Very few so-called ROMs these days are actualy read-only -- you just write to them occasionaly, and read from them often.
James P. Barrett
It seems that while we are debating various MS killer technologies, MS has itself identified the most likely cause of the weakening of its desktop dominance. Mobile Phones and devices. MS has been late in entering the sector (reminds me of the internet), but then the OS has caught up, or surpassed the others in most areas. The new Windows CE 5.0 is pretty solid.
... yeah and gaming console.
If we analyze the submission, the main reasons why people would switch to solid state devices would be
1. Price
2. You don't need a PC to send mails and make documents
3. Compactness and looks better
4. Easier to use
But if these are the factors, wouldn't mobile devices be way way easier than these computing appliances? And guess what, MS has an even better chance at capturing the market than anything else with XBox 360, which is now a multimedia + entertainment + communication
The reasons why people would use PCs would be
1. Powerful machine (For games, multimedia, programming etc etc)
2. Developers, Power users
3. Upgradeability
4. and most importantly, they prefer a PC for some reason.
By the way, about the $220 Mobilis, I don't see it as any different from the Simputer (which was yet another Slashdot favorite, and also from India) but failed to make any waves. IAAI, and I have not seen a Simputer, except at a trade show.
Life is just a conviction.
The Crimes:
A) ALL CAPS (almost) ALL THE TIME
B) Flameworthy headline reminiscent of a Babelfish treatment: (BIG NEWS ON USA MICROSOFT: Slavery to It Is Ending
C) No real news in what follows the "Big News" headline.
D) Anti-Microsoft tied to anti-Americanism without even a thin veil of sophistication:
Why not say: "BIG NEWS: THE WORLD WILL CHANGE FROM BASE. WE ARE NOTHING -- Let Us Be Everything?"
E) OS HISTORY -- GROWING LIKE TOPSY
F) Okay, now let me get this right: all US corporations, including Sun (praised and damned in the same rant) are evil, or can be evil, but Walmart is good?
G) Mentioning that Car Lots have a 108-day supply of SUVs. I don't even know where to begin with that.
I mean, I hate M$ as much as the next guy, but that is the nuttiest troll of an article I've seen in a while.
you mean like... no tubes anymore?
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
What do all these people have in common? They've all been 100% wrong, 100% of the time.
Just like the fall of the Roman Empire (or anything else in history), everyone who predicted it was wrong, until the time it happened.
The opportunities are endless. They could put it into a waterproof box and let it run the fuel injection system in a low cost automobile -- made in India, of course. And with a little screen, they could combine it with a GPS receiver to make a "portable map" for fishermen and hikers. And maybe it could include a calendar and address book (all open source) and call it a "personal digital assistant". And games -- good gosh, the games it could play. Does Nintendo know about this?
Yes, or to summarize opinions like these, nothing will ever kill MS because nothing in the past have so far!
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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'm an admin for a large national law firm in the US. I must say that really what is going to kill Microsoft is Windoes XP and Server 2003. These OSes are so much better than previous ones from Microsoft that I see no reason to upgrade in the remotely foreseaable future. Software assurance? Forget it. I.E. becomes a problem again? Use Mozilla. MS stops "supporting" them? Big deal. We plan to use these OSes ad infinitum. Now I suspect that most of corporate america is thinking the same thing. So where's the future revenue coming from? That's why MS is moving into Antivirus. They'll move into other enterprise areas also. I'd say they're in for a rough ride. Especially considering their multifront battles with Sony and Google and Linux. I don't wish them good luck.
??? Microsoft never produced a free OS, the IBM PC was not an open source hardware platform. The only area where open standards played a role was that the manufacturers of PC 'clones' refused to support the proprietary closed microchannel architecture and OS/2 that IBM was trying to introduce to monopolize the market.
Open standards are not open source.
Like most slashdot stories on this topic the article is not thought provoking in the slightest, it is simply a repetition of the same prejudices that have been repeated ad-nauseam without any thought at all.
Falling hardware prices have been an issue for years, Dell were selling a full spec PC with LCD monitor for $400 six months ago. Microsoft themselves sell their X-Box for around $200. It isn't very long since the cheapest usefull PC cost over $2000.
The masses go off and pay $50 for one computer game. There is no way that Tomb Raider or EverQuest have even one percent of the intellectual effort of Windows put into them. Open Source games are practically non existent, people are still working on a rip off of Civ 3.
Linux is nowhere near providing a mass market user experience and most people working on Linux have absolutely no interest in making it mass market. What some of them want to do is to make the mass market realise how superior the C shell is to a GUI interface but most of the serious developers understand that they are producing something for techies.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Famous computer visionary Nicholas Negroponte of the MIT Media Lab is developing and promoting a $100 laptop with proposed specifications including a 500-MHz processor, 1 GB of memory, an XVGA display, and free Linux. He envisions 200,000,000 million of them being distributed to countries like China in two years.
..
...
That's 200.000 billion. With about 1 billion people currently living in China, that's 200.000 laptops each. Allowing for you know, like, supply and demand to kick in, that will level out to about 30.000 laptops to each of 6 billion people on earth.
Now, I can't decide: should the joke be about the inherent need of IPv6 or (ooh) a beowolf cluster of these? Sweeeet
And who will shell out the $20 million billion these things will cost?
Ah, the joy of an extra factor 10^6 here and there
Beware of the US spies at the USAID? Give me a fucking break. The article read like a poorly written communist manifesto. It was old, hackneyed, and had no basis in either science or reason.
OK, a bit of hyperbole here, but not by far. If you cherry-pick the killer apps, and market the devices properly, only geeks will care about the fact that the underlying machine is a general-purpose computer.
If these consumer devices have an office suite, web browser and media player, most users aren't going to stray from those applications. The afformentioned apps are all commoditized by OS/FS to some degree. Once they are fully commoditized, nobody will care about the operating system or the applications, as long as the *data* can be exchanged with all other systems.
This is neither bad nor good for OS/FS. It's bad for people who develop the software because it means their job is done and they need to find a new one. Only maintenance programmers will be needed, and fewer and fewer of them.
In the end, it will be like arguments over FM vs. AM and what kind of amplifier circuit your radio uses. All those questions are answered, and you don't see too many ads for "analog radio engineer" do you? In other words, all the battles over software that seem so important now will be nothing more than academic when theh software is fully commoditized. Whether or not its proprietary won't matter, because software will all be the same anyway.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
IBM/Microsoft DOS was based on CPM, an open source/free OS
Gary Kildall must be spinning in his grave right now. CP/M was a PROPRIETARY operating system by Digital Research. Maybe there is an open or public domain incarnation today, but it was very much proprietary when DR still extisted. The STANDARDS were open in that the BDOS calls were pubically available, and CP/M variants ran on multiple platforms (8080, 8085, Z80, 8086, 68000) and CP/M machines were usually open architecture S100 machines. You could definitely not obtain a copy of CP/M legally for free nor could you see the source code without a special agreement and extra cost.
The BIOS for the IBM PC was also open
ummm...no it wasn't. Even the BIOS calls weren't 100% fully published. Phoenix and Compaq developed a compatible BIOS against the wished of IBM (it was the one and only part of the original PC that wasn't an off-the-shelf component in a design a small group of hoppyists could easily replicate). The way it went was like this: a group of people disassembled the IBM bios and wrote a detailed specification of all the entry and exit points of all the calls and what effect they had on the system. Then a separate group of developers at different company (Phoenix) who had sworn a legal oath that they had never examined an IBM PC used that specification to create the first IBM compatible BIOS.
It wasn't really Microsoft or IBM that created the advantage of which you speak at all--they merely took good advantage of "open architecture" and the co-operative efforts of others. When it comes to the creation of the industry, others did all the work and IBM and MS used their marketing savvy to take maximum advantage and profit (the ones who did the work were not marketers obviously).
When IBM finally realised that a little firmware was not enough to keep a lock on the market it was too late--they no longer steered the direction of that market. The MCA bus was technically superior to EISA, but it was closed and incompatible and IBMs share of the market they created was less than 50% or at least fast heading that way.
Don't confuse open architecture hardware platforms with Free/open software--they both have an advantage in that information is more free to move about, however control oof the design and direction of the former is still firmly in the grip of a select few hardware vendors: Intel controls the bus and motherboard dimensions, Intel and AMD the CPU and chipset, ATI and NVidia video and so on.
I don't think that outside of the Linux community anyone takes the "death of Microsoft" is a serious prediction - and I would think that even most Linux (or other OSS OS users) will judge this to be more of wishful thinking rather than a well founded serious prediction...