Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft OS Smart Phone for Developing Nations
YesSir writes "The New York Times is reporting that Microsoft CTO Craig J. Mundie and Bill Gates are talking about the idea of a specially designed cellphone that could be converted into a full-fledged computer through a connection to a TV and keyboard. They hope to use this product to bring computing to the masses in developing nations and be a Windows powerd alternative to Nicholas Negroponte's $100 free open-source powerd laptop."
But this cellphone is supposed to work as a PC and this PC is not a yesterday PC. If it is, then probably its better to sell an used machine for 100$ (should be aplenty, my office alone donates 30 machine every year) to the poor instead of wasting that on a useless machine.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
Continuing with the idea that cell phones, PDAs, and eventually laptops are going to merge. When you've got enough power in a wallet-sized device to do all your email, messaging, web browsing, and music playing, it'll just be a matter of snapping in different peripherals.
I'm shopping for a laptop right now, and what I really want is something small. I don't need a whole lot of power, I just need something I can slip in a handbag or backpack pocket (maybe a Fujitsu Lifebook P-series). With Verizon wireless broadband it could sit in my backpack/briefcase and, via skype, serve as a cell phone. It'd also be my PDA.
There are a lot of different approaches to reaching that convergence, and it'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
Yet, state of the art phones are really comparable with the home computers of 80s. But if those computers were sufficient for masses, then they would win the game with a better price of $5 or so :)
Its easier to donate them old machines, available aplenty, rather then selling some crappy phone. It requires a screen and a keyboard, when did these become portable without integration as in a laptop.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
If Microsoft cannot get their tentacles embedded in order to extract a tax on every electronic device legally sold in Africa, that's a serious setback. When Vista bombs later this year and alternative platforms and free software continue to take off everywhere, and Google keeps bleeding them with more papercuts, MSFT stock is going to tank.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
Dont those in the third world need reliable power and healthcare before they worry about setting up a TV and cell phone to check their email?
What in the world will the poor people do with all the cellphone and $100 computers. How about giving them medical equipment, building schools and homes first and then giving them computers!
The $100 laptop is powered by a crank (amongst other options) because there isn't always a power outlet available in third world countries.
How would you do this for a plain PC box and CRT monitor?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Just what we need.. :
- Primary school kids in developing countries with cellphone bills to pay
- Pay a tax to MS instead of using that money to buy RAM/CPU etc.
- Take a great idea and through some FUD slow down adoption (governments are
primary takers on $100 laptop. This sort of FUD might sow enough
doubt to make those governments think twice)
When developing countries start to roll out cheap WiMax, VOIP will become the primary communications medium in developing countries. Cellular technology is on it's last legs.
AFAIAC this is just shameless on MS's part.
Most current smartphones are way more expensive than basic PCs and perform an order of magnitude worse. They become cheaper but the process is even faster for PCs. And what's more, smartphones lack the most expensive part -- usable display!
That is probably a common misconception. Old/surplus PC's may be obtained virtually free in the West. But to use them in Africa, you'd have to refurbish them (used, or stuff that wasn't sold because there's some problem with it). Then transport across the globe: big, heavy boxes = expensive. Then operate: consuming lots of (unreliable) power, and dying like the flies (old + environmental conditions). Add these factors together, and it's not cheap at all. Maybe that's why a large percentage of refurbished PC's shipped to Africa, turn out to be useless and wind up in a landfill (possibly intentional)?
Wasn't that the whole point of a $100 laptop? Designed for the purpose, small (=cheap to transport), new (=not breaking down right away), and working even without reliable power.
I see a lot of people remarking that this is some sort of me-too, reactive stuff.
Well, I guess it is -- but you should get used to that. Microsoft's strength is that it is a great follower, not an innovator.
They let the innovator (e.g. Negroponte) risk stuff, then they follow on, crushing competition due to their size and resources. They've done this with DOS/Windows/Word/Excel/Access and so on. Every product was a follower.
They wait until they see someone else kicking ass with a product -- then they do their version, and slowly and gently, they push, push push their competitor out of the market. [Sort of the way the Han Chinese are moving into and dominating Xinjiang and Tibet - no massacres, just push, push push].
Every thirdworld guy wants a phone. Even before you have a reliable source of electricity, you need your cellphone, if only to find out about crop prices. Clearly the phone is THE growth platform of the future.
So if the get their stuff in the phone, they've got a few billion customers using windows -- and their company's future is secured.
Someone at Microsoft probably thought of this before, but it probably only got approval from Billy recently.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
have the pissed off customer to prove it.
I used a treo 600 for over a year. It was remarkably good as a converged device. However if I learned anything, I learned that having a good phone is so important it trumps everything else. It'd be fine if I spent all my time in the city, but I was freqently out of range.
I switched to an LG tri-mode phone with bluetooth, on the theory that I'd get at least an analog signal in places I used to have no coverage at all, and, guess what: I get perfectly good digital connectivity in places I had no bars before. The phone's memory is so small the web browser is useless, but using it as a bluetooth modem from a PDA works fine. The main problem is that only one device can use the BT modem at a time, and if I use it from windows the windows BT stack is so buggy it refuses to let go; I have to shut the BT radio off.
I'm not against convergence per se. It's just that converged devices as they now stand do not perform well enough in their comm roles, which is the linchpin for the whole concept. The best of the devices are mediocre PDAs, which is good enough for most of us.
For a converged device to work,it has to have two things: (1) NO phone trade-offs at all and (2) strong device connectivity to make up for UI tradeoffs. What makes a good phone and a what makesa good PDA or video viewer are all different things. While you may want to watch TV on your phone, you're also going to want to pipe the video to a TV (can anybody in the industry not be watching what iPods are doing these days?).
Once you have interdevice connectivity up to snuff, what you have is neither strictly a communication device nor strictly a converged device. It's a device that can work equally well in either role, as a network interface or a user interface.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I know everyone loves to hate on Microsoft's closed operating system, but the closed nature of cell phones and their networks is worse. What would the Internet be like if you could only use approved applications built into the computer on it? What if every email was $0.10?
This might be a subversive way for MS to open up cell phones into more general purpose devices with more third party applications.
If so, that would be interesting, and sad that they couldn't do that here.
To look at it the other way -- is there a Linux powered phone that you can VNC into and write applications for (including programably accessing the phone, bluetooth and cell-based network connection)?
That also would be interesting, although I'm sure it would be anathema to folks like Verison -- they want phones to be more like game consoles and less like general purpose computers. You can't even backup your paid-for ring tones? Even Apple treats you better.
-- I browse at +5 with stripped sigs
I'm afraid that many people living in the land of plenty (Mr. Gates included) do not fully understand what's going on in undeveloped parts of the world. There's rather strange general opinion that the only difference between developed and underdeveloped (or poor) societies lies in the fact that developed ones use high technology while others don't. There're also tons of studies published on that, only few of them getting close to explain what's causing that difference. In my personal experience it's a) organization and b) education. The truth is, laptops and cell phones (hi-tech in general) represent only side effects of a modern society. They do not either help develop, nor modernize, undeveloped one.
Nope - this makes virtually no sense at all.
Remember we're talking about 3rd world applications here - and you're talking about pushing all the processing to the other end of a network. Many third world countries have good cell phone penetration, but not so high (and so cheap) that you'd want to rely on using it 24/7 for everything
In addition, MS saysUh-huh. Thanks Bill. My eyes hurt just thinking about it.
Anyone who's ever used a TV as a monitor know they're virtually impossible to read for long periods of time. Look at the way Media Centre type applications have to use huge, high contrast text.
This is just MS trying to shoot down the competition, with any sort of idea they can, whilst they scramble to think of some other way of squashing it.
So, in summary, no - it makes no sense, its a much better idea to incorporate a cell phone into a light weight laptop then vice versa.
My pics.
Also, I don't see them producing these PC capable phones for anywhere near $100. Sure you can get a free phone, but that's only due to subsidies from signing a contract. Most phones cost over $150. Now start looking a the phones that can run actual applications like word processors and spreadsheets, along with a real browser, and your looking at around $500. If they can truly make laptops for $100, I think that's the best route to go. I wouldn't assume most people in need of theses computers have TVs anyway to hook up the cell phone to. At least not ones where the resolution would be good enough to get any real work done. Plus, now the family needs 2 tvs if both kids want to use their computers. I think an all in one unit like the laptop being offered is the only way it's going to work out, if it's going to work out at all.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Anyone who's ever used a TV as a monitor know they're virtually impossible to read for long periods of time.
Not if you have an HDTV, they're not. A 720- or 1080-line HD display should provide at least as much sharpness and legibility as a modern PC monitor.
So all we have to do is wait for adoption of High-Definition Television in the third world, and then... oh...