We are unable to transmit through conscious neural interference. You are receiving this broadcast as a dream. We are transmitting from the year two zero one seven.
"And then there's the whole collaboration thing..."
Yes, people in the same office modifying common "documents" with the goal of avoiding any physical contact.
I don't know how they do things where you work... But around here, if I need to work with someone on a document I'll go sit down with them and go over it in person. We've even got a nice little meeting table where we can get a whole bunch of people together around a single screen and hash things out.
That doesn't work so well when the person you need to work with is out of the office though... Especially if they're gone out of state and won't be back for a week... Or if the person doesn't even live in the same state. Hell, we're located up by the Canadian border, I can't even guarantee that the person I'm working with is located in the US.
And then there's the stuff we get from other companies, or have to send to other companies. Most of them are good enough to put it in a PDF and post it on a website, but not all of them. We've gotten hardware requirements in old DOC formats, and had to send back our response in the same format. Yes, I know, just convert it all to TXT or RTF or something standard... Try telling them that.
Your response is very typical here on Slashdot. Every time someone talks about the cloud, folks pop up indicating that they don't want to give up control of their software and/or data.
A few comments here...
First of all, this is Google's freely hosted service. You do actually get what you pay for. In this case, some vaguely-flaky software that I wouldn't rely on. It may be a handy way to collaborate or distribute documents... But I really wouldn't trust it with my only copy of a document.
Google does, however, have a paid service which is much more reliable and has clearly-written terms of service that tell you exactly what you're getting into.
You point out that things like this wouldn't happen with MS Office or OpenOffice... Well, that's partly true. You probably wouldn't have some cloud server telling you something is inappropriate. But you do run into other issues with locally run applications... Compatibility issues, updates, missing discs, corrupt files, etc. Not to say that locally run applications are a bad idea... I'm just reminding you that they aren't some kind of perfect solution either.
There's also some kind of assumption, more often than not, that moving things to the cloud would automatically put them beyond your control. This is not true. Google's freely hosted apps allow you to upload your own documents from local storage, and download documents from the cloud to your own local storage. So you can use the hosted apps much like you would MS Office or OpenOffice - albeit with a more cumbersome open/save process.
Additionally, the whole "cloud" thing is a pretty vague term. There is no good reason why all the clouds have to be owned and run by someone else. It may not make a whole lot of sense for a home user to set up their own cloud server with just three workstations to connect to it... But companies are already using web apps, terminal servers, thin clients, and whatever else to centralize their applications. Imagine a large company purchasing a Microsoft Office cloud server license instead of 1,000+ individual licenses of Microsoft Office. You install that cloud license on a single physical machine, or maybe a cluster, or whatever. And everyone in your company runs MS Office from the cloud server that your company owns. All the updates happen there, all the patches happen there... No need to install/manage/update/patch the MS Office installs on the local workstations.
And then there's the whole collaboration thing... Locally run installs of MS Office or OpenOffice are a pain in the ass when you're trying to collaborate with people. Write up your document, save it, distribute it... Oh, crap, it got caught by the spam filter. Talk to an admin, re-name a file, get it distributed... Damn, someone can't open that format... Re-save, re-distribute... Now you're getting email back from various people with their various changes, and you're having to integrate those changes... Re-save, re-distribute... Looks like someone's local app ate the formatting... Re-save, re-distribute... You get the idea.
So this guy doesn't like being called the "IT Guy"... Well, that is a bit vague
I doubt if he actually has business cards with "IT guy" on them.
That's my whole point.
"IT Guy" is not his official title. It isn't his official position. It isn't what is listed on the organization chart, it isn't what he'd put on his resume, it isn't on his business cards.
"IT Guy" is just a vague way of indicating where in a company he fits. Like "Joe from Accounting" or "Betty from Sales" - this is "John from IT."
Regardless of what his actual title may be - if he works for the IT department, he's an "IT Guy."
If his company is big enough to have separate departments for "IT" and "Software" - then maybe he should suggest that he'd be a better fit in the Software department. But if his company only has an "IT" department, and that's where he works, he's an "IT Guy."
However, I think most people understand the difference between an HR manager, accountant and lawyer, and they would have different job titles even if they were all in an administration dept. It's unlikely they would all be called 'administration guy' and be expected to deal with the same queries, unless it's a really, really small company, in which case it's fair enough and everyone is expected to be versatile. I don't think IT is given the same respect/insight, so I think the article author's point stands.
Of course they'll have different job titles - just as I assume our "IT guy" is going to have some kind of official job title like "Senior Network Administrator" - but that doesn't really matter. We're talking about somebody who doesn't want to be called an "IT guy" even though he works in the "IT Department."
HR is responsible for human resources... Accounting is responsible for money... Legal is responsible for all the legal mumbo-jumbo...
So, where does payroll fit into things? Is that HR or Accounting?
How about whoever it is that handles things like the hiring and firing procedures... Does that fall under Legal, or HR?
I'm sure you've got people working in HR who have skillsets that more closely resemble folks in Accounting or Legal... Or you've got people who have duties that fall somewhere between the departmental lines... But you've still got to stick them on an organizational chart somewhere.
So you get guys in HR who don't know the first thing about hiring or firing people... Who went to years and years of school to learn all kinds of neat accounting stuff... But they're still in HR, whether they like it or not. And they'll still be introduced as "Joe from HR" - even if they don't like the association with the people who fire you. And maybe they'll be asked about some benefit package during lunch, and they won't be able to answer, because they don't know anything about benefits.
How does that differ from someone in IT who went to school for years and years to learn programming and has nothing to do with actually fixing a broken PC?
It may very well be that your average human being doesn't understand the intricacies of IT work... May not understand the subtle differences between a DBA and a network administrator (they're both administrators, right?) But that doesn't really have much to do with organizational charts.
If your company has an IT department, and you work in it, you're an IT guy. Just as you're an HR guy if you work in the HR department, and you're a Sales guy if you work in the Sales department.
This is my point, your father doesn't call himself a "health guy", he still refers to himself as an "eye doctor" which says 1) He's a doctor, not a nurse or an orderly and 2) He's specialized in eyes in some way.
It's the same way for most "IT guys" I know, it's not that they want to be called "senior database interface developer for Oracle cluster #4", they would just like people to at least acknowledge that they're developers and not "IT guys" much in the same way that most medical professionals I know would hate to be called "health guy/girl".
And my point, which you are stubbornly ignoring, is that the amount of specificity varies depending on the situation... And further that specificity is often un-necessary.
Depending on the situation, who he's talking to, and the context of the conversation my father may also refer to himself as a "business owner" or an "entrepreneur" as he owns his own practices. Or he might refer to himself as working in the "medical field" as that's basically what he does.
I think that you, and others in this discussion, are intentionally blurring the lines between entire fields of occupation and departments within a company.
At a given company, you're likely to have an HR department, an IT department, an Accounting department, maybe a Legal department, whatever. In introducing someone, you might very well refer to them as "Joe from Accounting" or "Betty from IT." This indicates in a very general way where they fit into the company.
If your company is big enough to have distinct departments such as "Software" or "Networking" then I would assume that Betty would be introduced as "Betty from Software." But if your company has no Software department, it doesn't make much sense to specify that, does it?
Calling someone a "health guy" doesn't make much sense as you're referring to a different structure all-together... You aren't referring to a department within your company, you're referring to an entire field of occupation. Unless your company has a Health department - in which case referring to someone as "Bob from Health" might make perfect sense.
When talking to people outside of my company, nobody cares whether I work in Accounting or Sales or Legal or wherever... Because they don't work for my company and don't care how I fit into the master plan. I might instead indicate that "I work for SuperCorp" or "I'm a programmer with SuperCorp" or I might just indicate that "I'm a programmer." It'll depend on the context of the conversation.
And when I'm speaking with folks who work at the local hospital, many of them simply state that they work "in the medical field" or "in medicine" or "at the hospital" - regardless of whether they're a lab technician, or a doctor, or a surgeon, or a nurse, or whatever.
Calling software development, network engineering, web design etc. all "IT" is a bit like calling HR, accounting and legal all "paperwork". I agree with the story author - the need to call everyone who produces or maintains software or hardware "IT" just shows how little most people understand the businesses they run and the people they employ. It's that reasoning that leads to (in small companies... hopefully) the pimply faced youth who reboots the servers being asked to design and deploy a mission-critical database because he 'knows about computers'. Your post typifies this: they're all "vaguely related to Information Technology" therefore they should be the same department? That makes no sense at all, and many companies get this wrong, wrong, wrong.
If this were a board dedicated to HR-related topics... Instead of IT-related topics... I'm sure we'd see people on here complaining that they don't like being referred to as an "HR guy." I'm also sure that you've at least once in your life referred to someone as "working in HR" or being "from HR" or having to go talk to "somebody in HR."
Is it accurate? Is it specific? No... But it doesn't need to be.
If your company is big enough to have an entire software department, I'm sure you get referred to as a "software guy" - because distinctions are usually made along departments rather than specific job duties. But if it isn't, if you only have an IT department, then that's what you're stuck with.
Some places are big enough to have separate HR, accounting, and legal departments... Other places are not, and just refer to those duties as "administration" or "management."
But at the end of the day you'll still say you went to the Dentist.
That's like saying "I went over to IT".
Yeah. That's kind of my point.
When I call an Electrician to fix something, I have no idea who they're sending out and who is doing the work in my house. It might be a fully licensed/qualified/insured Electrician... Or it might be one of their apprentices/trainees. I'll still refer to them as an Electrician. Same thing goes for Plumbers and Carpenters and whatever else...
Yeah, but there's still the implication that a tradesman fixed something and that he/she was either fully trained or an apprentice, the equivalent would be if all helpdesk guys occasionally got referred to as "software engineers" but no one really cared because 95% of them were training to become software engineers anyway.
Actually, the equivalent would be if all the helpdesk guys occasionally got referred to as "IT guys"...and the software engineers occasionally got referred to as "IT guys"...and the network administrators occasionally got referred to as "IT guys"...but no one really cared because 100% of them worked in IT.
If you check the contract I've signed with my employer it clearly states that my job involves software development and some related system administration, they can't legally force me to do helpdesk stuff, and it's definitely not part of my everyday duties, yet to most people at the company I'm an "IT guy", just like the keyboard replacement guy.
Go on over to the Sales department. Ask around there. You will find people who have contracts stipulating that they must actually sell products to customers... You'll find people who sell new products... People who sell upgrades... People who manage the people who sell things... People who attend trade shows and fish up new prospects... You get the idea. Their individual duties vary quite a bit from one person to the next. Their individual contracts will stipulate different requirements. But they're all working in the Sales department.
Just like you're working in the IT department.
And just as I'll refer to someone being generically "from Sales" or "in Marketing" - you'll get referred to generically as an "IT guy."
My point is that with IT/computers/software it gets "dumbed down" to "IT guy" while with other professions it tends to run the other way, you don't call all medical professionals "health people" or "orderlies", in fact most people seem to prefer accidentally calling a nurse a doctor than the other way around (because they know it's insulting to a doctor to be called a nurse while most nurses probably won't be insulted if someone mistakes them for a doctor).
Regardless of whether things get dumbed down to "IT guy" or dumbed up to "Doctor" - it is all a matter of generalization.
So you do software development? Would you prefer to be called a developer then? But that doesn't specify what kind of development you do, does it? Are you a web developer? Database? And it also doesn't specify whether you're an apprentice or actually know what you're doing...
You've probably got an official title that shows up somewhere on your business card or a sign on your desk - something like Lead Web Developer or Senior Database Developer or whatever. That's nice and specific and says something about your role in the company. But it won't really mean much to people who don't know what it means to develop software... Or what makes database development unique... Or the kind of effort it takes to become a "lead" or "senior" developer... To them, you just work with computers. Which makes you an IT guy.
My father is an optometrist. At conventions and whatnot, various professional environments, he will refer to himself as such. When around friends and family, h
Whether you're a programmer or are IT support is not simple a matter of studying something different... you could study software development and end up in IT support, or you could study biology and end up as a programmer. I don't think this is a matter of refering to someone's abilities, it's a matter of refering to what they actually do. If you work for a marketting company, but you just make the tea, it wouldn't really be correct to say "I work in marketing", because you don't, you just happen to work for a company that is in marketing. You wouldn't call the person who supports their IT needs a marketer any more than you'd call those in marketing 'programmers' because they use a computer.
I do believe you've misunderstood the parent.
Honestly, how often do we refer to some people as "He's from the marketing" without going into details. We are aware that marketing department has MBAs, it has interns, it has people who have studied IT, it has all these odd people who have studied language arts, philosophy or such... But we don't care. Why? To us it makes no difference what they have studied. We only care about what are their connections to us.
He's talking about departments within a company - not the company as a whole.
No, it may not make sense for someone in HR at IBM to say "I work in IT." But they will say "I work in HR." And people know what they mean. They know that his job with somehow be related to hiring and firing and managing human resources. Just as if you say "I work in IT" people know that your job is somehow related to computers.
Your knowledge of the subject may leave you having to round down, but that doesn't mean there's no need for accurate description, you don't need to understand the terms to understand the purpose of a little accuracy. Call a British person French, or a Canadian an American, you might live the other side of the world and so a few miles one way or another makes no different to you, but you can always bet that it matters to them. It's hardly a difficult thing to respect.
Ah, but now you're not talking about generalization so much as mis-categorization.
If someone called me an IT guy, and I actually worked in HR, I might be annoyed.
But if someone called me an American, when I actually live in New York, it'll be a little odd of me to get terribly upset.
That's what we're talking about here - classification and granularity.
I may be male, but I'm still human. I may be a New Yorker, but I'm still an American. I may be a network engineer, but I'm still in IT.
In my experience when lay people say "IT" they usually mean tech-support and cannot conceive of any other job. Which is why I do not like being called an IT person, since programming is nothing like it.
In my experience, when people say "IT" they usually mean network support.
Generally if someone is having a problem with their workstation or a bit of software they'll say they need to call "tech support."
If they're talking about a bug in some in-house bit of software they'll refer to the "software guys."
And if they can't talk to a server or their Internet isn't working, they'll call the "IT guys."
A cardiac surgeon doesn't know much otolaryngology; an EE doesn't know much about steam turbines; a personal injury lawyer isn't going to be much help with your corporate takeover.
Comparisons:
IT guy: helpdesk guy through to ph.d. who works with high-end clusters.
Health guy: orderly through to highly specialized surgeon.
Electric stuff guy: from the guy who moves crates of PCBs through electricians through to EE.
Law guy: Secretary at law firm through to top tier lawyer who's spent his/her entire career specializing.
Now, don't you think those on the right side of the above descriptions would frown own being referred to as health/electric stuff/law guy if the terms had the meanings I gave them above? And for "IT guy" that's exactly how the term is commonly used, the guy who gives you a new keyboard when you spill coffee on it gets referred to as an "IT guy" and so do your senior developers and sysadmins, guess why they're grumpy about it...
/Mikael
Depending on the context of the conversation, I (and millions of other people) do use those groupings - and nobody cares.
Fine, if I schedule an appointment to visit my Doctor, I know they're a Doctor and I'll refer to them as such. But if I'm in the emergency room for some reason and somebody takes a look at my leg - I really don't know what their title is. Are they actually an MD? Are they just some high-ranking nurse? I dunno... And when I eventually leave and tell my boss/friends/family about the visit I'll just say "the folks at the ER told me it was OK."
A better example might be going to the Dentist. Usually there's just one or two actual Dentists, and a slew of hygienists. Depending on what you're having done, you might not even see a Dentist - just a hygienist. But at the end of the day you'll still say you went to the Dentist.
When I call an Electrician to fix something, I have no idea who they're sending out and who is doing the work in my house. It might be a fully licensed/qualified/insured Electrician... Or it might be one of their apprentices/trainees. I'll still refer to them as an Electrician. Same thing goes for Plumbers and Carpenters and whatever else...
A better example might be the folks who work for our local Cable Company. They've got some people who are familiar with networking and data transmission who work on the ISP side of things... And they've got some very basic installers who just drill holes and run cables... But they're frequently referred to as just the "Cable Guy."
Law guys are actually a great example... I'll call up a law office, retain a lawyer... But at least 50% of the work that's done and 50% of my money isn't actually going to the Lawyer. It'll be going to secretaries and paralegals and interns and whatever else. I'll get phone calls from folks besides the actual Lawyer, as well. I don't know what all their titles are. I'll just tell my wife "the lawyer says he needs this document" - and nobody cares if it was actually the paralegal who needed the document or the lawyer himself.
There is a reason why we don't refer to screwdrivers, circular saws and sanding machines all as "hammers". There is a reason why we have different words for "poisonous" and "tasty"... if you're not eating them, then just "berries" might be a sufficient description to you, but language evolves for a reason, we have vocabulary for a reason, description is important. Not understanding the different between two different terms shows you haven't been exposed to it. Not understanding that there could be important differences that may lie outside of what you've been exposed to show narrow mindedness. Personally, I'd rather go with the label of 'petty over my label' than that of 'deliberately ignorant', so I respect even the differences that I don't understand.
Normally, I'd agree with you. I'm a big fan of using the appropriate words for the appropriate things. It frustrates me to no end to see people appropriating words for their own purposes and completely mis-using the English language.
However, "IT" is more of a generic label than a specific title. It refers to an entire department - just as "HR" does. Not everyone in HR is a manager... Nor do they all do the same job... Nor are they all on the same pay grade... But they're all in HR.
Same thing goes for Marketing, or Sales, or whatever. They indicate a department, or a general function within a company, not a specific job title or duties.
So this guy doesn't like being called the "IT Guy"... Well, that is a bit vague... I would assume his official title would be more along the lines of "IT Manager" or "Network Technician" or "Software Developer" or whatever... But he'll still be working in the IT department - as his work is at least vaguely related to Information Technology.
How much more can we write about Louis Pasteur or the Treaty of Worms or Heilongjiang? Wikipedia has had a ton of stuff poured into it and doesn't really need new contributors.
Agreed.
Wikipedia isn't really like a normal web community or collaborative effort... It is an on-line encyclopedia. Once you've got a good, thorough article about something... You don't really need to keep revisiting it all the time. Sure, if some new bit of evidence pops up - fine, add it in. But it isn't like you need an army of contributors to keep a lot of this stuff fresh.
And even if every single contributor were to leave today, you'll still have Wikipedia. You'll still have tons of content about tons of stuff. It'd still be a useful reference.
1) We have a junk disposal problem with computers anyway; clogging it further with cheap machines isn't an answer.
The reason we have a junk disposal problem is because the average consumer doesn't care about it. And since the average consumer doesn't care about it, it won't be an issue in rolling out more cheap machines.
2) The decent machines cost money. Face it: quality costs, and subsidies by carriers/telcos/etc are false economy
I agree that you generally get what you pay for. I understand that subsidies by carriers aren't actually making anything cheaper. But it does make things more accessible. If Verizon will give me a phone for "free" when I sign a two-year contract, that's all most people will see. And as far as actually getting a decent machine? Look around you. Disposability reigns supreme.
3) You certainly jest when you reply, 'Maybe. Maybe not.' Who do you think you're kidding? Tethered broadband costs lots of $$ in the US, and the carriers are having trouble dishing up what they have (no fights regarding Verizon vs AT&T, etc.). Subsidized cell phones are the same scam.
I do not jest, nor am I trying to kid anyone. I don't know what kind of leverage Google may have... I have no idea what kind of income they could make off a netbook... I don't know what kind of network infrastructure they might have... It might be cost-prohibitive to provide cellular data on a free netbook, it might not be.
4) Netbooks fill a need, and I see that need. It also means that the cloud/SaaS apps that are required to be used to do something real are probably going to be tethered to a provider. ChromeOS means you better love Google.... or it will be difficult (probably not impossible) to move to someone else's meager offerings. Google's service levels aren't guaranteed, and if they're offline for whatever reason, go fish.
Unless Google's free netbooks become more of a platform than a service themselves. I'm sure software companies would be happy to pay a fee to Google to make their new SaaS offerings available on Google's netbooks. And keep in mind that Google does have paid versions of their services.
5) The average consumer REELS at having to dump their $500 machine every three years. They would (and so would I) prefer to invest every five or even more years in new hardware. But the stuff breaks, and is subject to the madness of Moore's Law, keeping up with the joneses, and so on. Six months? Ye Gawds, Man.
Not because of the price... Or some emotional attachment to the hardware... Because of the data. It's a pain in the ass to move all your pictures and documents over to a new machine... Re-install all your software... But if everything lives on the cloud? What if you just put your username & password into any netbook and it suddenly becomes just like your home computer? All your data, all your programs... Because everything lives on the cloud.
6) A good tool is a good tool. In my cabinet are lots of tools that are older than I am, and I'm a half-century-plus. These tools stand the test of time because they're quality devices. The concept of a disposable machine is as abhorent as disposable razors. If they can't built it well enough to withstand average use over a decent lifecycle, then they shouldn't build it at all. Look at the fate of General Motors for questions.
In case you hadn't noticed, disposable razors are pretty popular.
And I think this gets to the crux of our disagreement. You have a problem against disposable razors. You think something should be built to last and continue to be used for years. That's fine. That's a choice you can make. But that's not a value that everyone else holds. Like it or not, many people out there are just fine with their disposable razors. They're perfectly happy to buy cheap bits of plastic and throw them away, day
Why would I want a netbook, free or not? You have to have demand first before you think of price, and even at price 0, demand is not infinite (you've got to carry the thing home, find a place to stash it, etc. - there are costs involved in addition to the price).
So no. Even for free, I wouldn't have a use for it. The whole netbook thing is pointless anyways and will soon blow over.
You may not want a netbook, but I think there is demand.
For myself, it would be handy to have something small and portable that can browse the web. It'd be handy for checking email while on the road... But it would also be nice to have something small and lightweight that was able to bring up a webUI on a router - so I don't have to balance my laptop on top of the ladder with me in the wiring closet. The ability to read PDFs or such would be very nice as well.
For Joe Sixpack... Let's be honest, most folks see a computer as essentially disposable already. I don't know how many people I hear from who just buy some $300 special at WalMart or Sam's Club around Christmas time... They'll use it for about a year and then replace it because the thing was crap to begin with and is now full of garbage. If they can get a free (or very cheap) netbook and use it to log into Facebook and check their email, I'm sure there'll be tons of demand.
On another note: I'm very surprised that people are all that interested in what is, essentially, a SpyOS. Forget tracking cookies - this OS is going to be tracking people's behavior 24 hours a day.
Not to provide any ideas into advanced Spywware under the guise of "free useful PC" but imagine if there is a GPS in the netbook that is able to track the users' movements. Traffic patterns, of the individual, could be analyzed and combined with other users and applicable advertising will show up for 'popular' products both in on-line advertising and roadside billboards.
I don't want to get too far off topic so I'll ask this question: When did we turn the corner of being Anti-Spyware to being Pro-Spyware?
I don't know that it's really a question of being anti- or pro-spyware so much as whether we're being paranoid or pragmatic.
I've got a Garmin, it's handy for getting me where I need to go. However, it's theoretically possible that someone could subpoena the GPS logs on it to find out where I've been. I'm not sure how useful that would be... I don't know if the logs are timestamped or anything... But it could happen.
So, what, do I throw away my Garmin because it's spying on me?
Cell phones can give your approximate location if you call 911... Should I throw away my cell phone because it's spying on me?
Sure, this new Google netbook thing could become the ultimate SpyOS. GPS tracking...ability to phone home...reading your email...watching your surfing habits... But to what end? This thing would be distributed by Google - they're not going to steal your credit card number and run off to Jamaica. They're going to serve you ads.
Big freaking deal. I don't need a netbook spying on me to get served with ads. Just about every web page I bring up has ads on it... If I call a company I'll likely have to listen to them advertise their services while I'm on hold... If I turn on the TV I'll be hit with one ad after another... Same thing goes for the radio... If I open up a newspaper, or magazine, or even just walk down the street... Advertising is everywhere. Why would I care if Google throws a couple more ads at me?
Yeah, I suppose the government could get some kind of a wiretap on it... Or law enforcement could subpoena some logs... But, again, to what end? I'm not saying if you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about? I'm saying it's too late for those kinds of privacy concerns.
The US Government has already admitted to illegally wiretapping tons of citizens. We've got people being held for years before being charged with anything. Everyone and their brother has a cell phone with a camera in it. We've got security cameras all over stores and shopping centers. You actually think you've got any kind of privacy these days?
If I was really worried about privacy, I wouldn't be starting with Google's new SpyOS netbook. I'd have to close my bank accounts and cancel my credit cards... Start doing business exclusively in cash... I'd have to cancel my cell phones, throw away my GPS... I'd have to move someplace far more rural... I'd have to do everything on-line through TOR or something equivalent... Actually, I'm not sure that I'd even want to keep my Internet connection, nor any of the other utilities. If I was genuinely concerned about privacy I'd likely be living in a cave somewhere completely off the grid.
I can see hotels, conference centers, and the like providing computers "brought to you by Google" or for that matter any advertising partner.
Most of the hotels I've stayed at in the last several years have some kind of public terminal in the lobby already.
Unless they're literally handing you a computer to keep, I don't see the whole "brought to you by Google" thing being any different than what we have now.
Of course, to be a winner with businesses they would have to allow VPNs to work and would have to guarentee there were no keyloggers or other security issues with the device. That should be easy enough to promise if the device boots over the network from an authenticated and trusted source and the machine were epoxy-sealed to prevent tampering.
I have a hard time seeing a business that security conscious allowing you to connect with some random netbook you were given for free.
I'd take several dozen, probably hundreds... hardware can't be given away. I think.... I'd wallpaper my house with monitors. I'm sure I could make a nice server/web ap to run all the buggers even if I couldn't take the hardware apart.
Basically, the idea is impossible and stupid.
Limit 1 per customer.
Not available locally, have to sign up on-line with a unique name/phone number/address that it will be shipped to - so they can make sure you aren't abusing things too badly.
They used to give away all sorts of goodies when you opened a new bank account... They were even giving away iPods at one of the local banks for a while.
I won't use a machine which is useless without network. I don't like to rely on an internet connection because some times it breaks. I want to be able to store files on my computer and use it on the plane. And I want to be able to do it off-line. I want all my tools locally, I need LaTeX to work, I need a compiler, I need scientific visualization tools.
I believe in free-as-in-speech software and I don't see how GoogleOS really fits into it.
I do believe you've completely missed the point.
If the device is little more than a portable web browser, what would you do with it offline?
Netbooks are not intended to run LaTeX or compilers or scientific visualization... They're intended to surf the web, log on to Facebook, and check your email.
Fine, you need LaTeX and compilers and scientific visualization to work... But you're on vacation, on a road trip somewhere. You've stopped at a rest stop somewhere that offers free WiFi and you're wondering if that book you ordered has shipped yet. Do you really need offline storage, gigs of RAM, and a quad-core CPU to check your email? Are you going to compile up a new email client there in the parking lot? Do you routinely craft your email messages in LaTeX?
Toy or not, it might be very handy to pull up my email on the road. Or check the prices on Amazon/NewEgg/wherever while I'm out shopping.
You'd end up using your main computer because at that price, the darn thing is almost disposable.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...
The point is basically that the thing would be disposable. I worry a hell of a lot less about a brand new HDD than one that's got years worth of data stored on it. And if it's all cloud-based, then the netbook itself has little more than some bootstrapping on it. If it breaks, you chuck it and get a new one. They're free after all.
But I wouldn't end up using my main computer... Because my main computer is a big box with a bunch of cables, a couple monitors, a keyboard, a mouse, and it all requires a power outlet. So I can't very well haul it around with me when I'm on the road. And I can't very well fire it up at a rest stop somewhere to see if I've got any important email to worry about.
And if it had a cell modem in it, it would end up costing you a lot more than free, $150/whatever.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Hardware costs keep coming down. And I'm sure if Google starts giving these things away for free we'll see mass production and price drops pretty quick.
Partnering with a wireless carrier might be more difficult... Amazon and Barnes & Noble have both managed it... But they didn't do it for free products... I guess it'd come down to how much revenue Google thinks they can generate from the thing.
Plastic tinker-toy tools are for those that just play around. Buying something with quality helps-- despite the fact that today's quad-core notebook has a half-life of only three years if we're lucky.
I think you're missing the point.
For the average consumer, a computer is basically disposable right now. They'll buy some $300 special at Dell, use it for a year, and then replace it because the thing is too full of crap to be used.
If they can get a netbook for free that is able to check their email and log in to Facebook, I'm sure they'll jump all over it. Even if the thing dies in only 6 months.
For those of us who actually buy quality hardware that lasts for 3+ years with no trouble, this isn't going to be a replacement for your main computer. But it might make a nice addition. Again, I don't have a portable little machine to haul around with me when I travel. A free netbook might be very nice in that capacity.
As nice as it is to think that advertisements will cover everything, a single user isn't worth a $150+ netbook. Actually single user is worth a lot less for Google and other companies.
Who says the netbook will cost $150?
Hardware keeps getting cheaper... And if everything lives in the cloud then you really need virtually no local storage. Just a screen, keyboard, and some kind of Internet connection.
What if the netbook only costs $100? $50?
Lets say Google gets around $2 CPM on normal searches. That means a single search is worth something like $0.002 for Google. It's going to take lots of searches and ad clicks from every user to even cover the costs of the netbook. And the same users would be doing those searches and ad clicks anyway, so it serves no purpose.
What about advertising that's physically on the netbook itself? Like logos and graphics and whatnot?
Companies pay good money to advertise on billboards and in movies and on the sides of busses. You could take the low-tech approach and just slap some logos on the thing... You know Google would have their logo on it somewhere. Someone asks you at work or wherever - where'd you get the netbook? - oh, it's free, check out netbook.google.com Gets Google another user looking at the ads on their free netbook.
And you could slap some FedEx or WalMart or whatever other signage on it. I'm sure companies would happily pay a few dollars to slap a logo on a netbook that you'll be using in public on a more-or-less daily basis.
Or you could take a more high-tech approach and put an epaper display on the back of the screen... Orient it so that other people can read it while you're using the netbook... Google could tie that feed right into their AdSense program. Of course that'd be a bigger ad... Something with some graphics and whatnot... And it'd be visible to more than just the person using the netbook... So Google could charge extra for that ad space.
Another thing is that search result advertisements and even ads on gmail are worth more because they can be really targeted. But what do you advertise on a spreadsheet app? Users aren't looking for any info or such - they're working on their spreadsheet.
Why, you advertise a competing spreadsheet app, of course! Microsoft can advertise their new and improved LiveSpreadsheet... Or their own free netbook program... Someone can roll up a new cloud-based spreadsheet app and advertise it... Or Google can advertise their professional spreadsheet app... More built-in functions, no advertising, priority cloud processing... Maybe you can advertise QuickBooks Cloud Edition or something like that, especially if you serve up ads based on content like Gmail does now.
It's just out of the question that a single user would be worth $150 for Google.
Again, I don't know that Google needs $150 from each user. Maybe you're only worth $75 to Google... But Joe over in accounting is worth $300... So Google still makes enough money to support both of you. And that's assuming that the netbooks actually cost $150 each.
But I think you're being short-sighted. You're only looking at AdSense impressions - not the new possibilities that these netbooks present. Not just new possibilities for advertising either...
The free netbook could easily become a platform to deliver software as a service. Intuit could pay Google a fee to advertise this year's edition of TurboTax... And then pay another fee to host the cloud-based version of TurboTax... And then you could pay Intuit to use this year's version of TurboTax.
Yes, I know, software as a service is evil... You'll never trust your data to the cloud...
But if Joe Sixpack can get a free netbook, and this year's TurboTax Cloud Edition for only $20... Instead of buying a PC and full-priced TurboTax... I think they'll manage to move a lot of free netbooks and a lot of TurboTax Cloud Editions.
It does mean that whatever killer apps may come out, the iPhone is less likely to have it than others. That in turn will decide if the iPhone will continue to succeed or will become a has-been.
Ultimately, the consumer will care about the various "killer apps". Whichever phone has them will win.
Very true.
However, which app is "killer" depends entirely on the consumer.
The "killer app" for one user might be an open source platform in general. The "killer app" for another user might be this Vlingo thing. The "killer app" for someone else might be the iPhone OS so they can keep using all the other apps that they're familiar with. The "killer app" for someone else might be seamless integration with whatever strange mail server they run at the office.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Vlingo's app is crippled on the iPhone because of Apple policies. It may not be everyone's killer app, but it is for some. The same policies are equally likely to cripple other people's ideas of the killer app. That in turn leads more and more people who do the research and choose the phone that runs whatever they consider to be the "must have" app to decide against the iPhone whose crippling policies kill their favorite app.
When one platform is highly restricted and another is wide open, useful apps will tend to be ported TO the open platform and not away from it.
No I'm not.
I understand that the iPhone is a less open platform. I understand that Apple is refusing to carry various apps for no reason other than they don't want to. I understand that this may very well lead to people choosing other phones.
None of that has much to do with my original statement.
If your major criteria for a new phone is a fairly open platform where developers can roll out software without some other company telling them NO just for the hell of it, the iPhone is not the phone for you.
That does not necessarily make it a flawed product, nor does it mean that anybody is lacking vision. All it means is that this isn't the product for you.
I'll admit that I don't have a smartphone of any kind. I don't have a Blackberry or an iPhone or anything. I have no idea what redeeming qualities any particular smartphone may or may not have. But the fact that Apple is selling millions of these things suggests to me that somebody out there is buying them.
If a company like Vlingo can extend the functionality of smartphones like the Blackberry, Android, etc. in ways that Apple and others never seriously considered then I'll very likely go with those phones in the future, and not one that's artificially restricted due to the limited vision of people like Steve Jobs.
It isn't really a matter of vision...
No single product is going to meet the requirements of everyone, everywhere. That's why there are different kinds of smartphones out there, all of them making money.
So you're really impressed with this Vlingo stuff and you want to use it - well, by all means, buy a phone that it'll run on. But maybe someone else doesn't care about that... Maybe what someone else really wants is a phone that integrates nicely with their iTunes, or a phone that uses the same apps as their iPod Touch, or maybe they're just really hooked on some random app that's only available on the iPhone, or maybe they're a Mac developer and want to show some brand loyalty... Who knows?
The point is that there are an awful lot of people out there who are very happy with their Vlingo-crippled iPhones. Just as there are plenty of people out there who are utterly miserable with their Vling-enabled Blackberries.
Do your research and buy the product that meets your needs.
Whatever the pathways involved, say we discover some incredibly complex mechanism that regulates muscle mass; it still won't solve the basic problem. Being in free-fall or "zero g" for long enough causes involution of muscle and deteriorates bone strength. Now perhaps some pharmaceutical company can be persuaded to invest billions of dollars, one this pathway is discovered, to invent a drug that blocks it and thus lets astronaut keep their muscles. Then they will sell the pills to NASA and other space programs, at $1 million per pill.
Frankly wouldn't it be better to understand the relationship between gravity and muscle mass/bone density, and work on ways to simulate gravity instead? Methinks it would be far cheaper, AND resolve the situation.
As with most space-related stuff, there are applications beyond the realm of 0 G environments.
Muscles atrophy here on Earth as well. Folks who are immobilized due to injuries or illness suffer muscle loss. In some cases it requires an awful lot of physical therapy to get that muscle back. In other cases it just isn't possible to fix.
Assuming we're able to discover "some incredibly complex mechanism that regulates muscle mass" - that information can be applied down here on Earth as well.
And if a pharmaceutical company does invest billions of dollars into inventing a drug that blocks it, they won't just be selling it to NASA.
Slashdot Mirror
We are unable to transmit through conscious neural interference. You are receiving this broadcast as a dream. We are transmitting from the year two zero one seven.
Very Nicely Done
"And then there's the whole collaboration thing..."
Yes, people in the same office modifying common "documents" with the goal of avoiding any physical contact.
I don't know how they do things where you work... But around here, if I need to work with someone on a document I'll go sit down with them and go over it in person. We've even got a nice little meeting table where we can get a whole bunch of people together around a single screen and hash things out.
That doesn't work so well when the person you need to work with is out of the office though... Especially if they're gone out of state and won't be back for a week... Or if the person doesn't even live in the same state. Hell, we're located up by the Canadian border, I can't even guarantee that the person I'm working with is located in the US.
And then there's the stuff we get from other companies, or have to send to other companies. Most of them are good enough to put it in a PDF and post it on a website, but not all of them. We've gotten hardware requirements in old DOC formats, and had to send back our response in the same format. Yes, I know, just convert it all to TXT or RTF or something standard... Try telling them that.
Your response is very typical here on Slashdot. Every time someone talks about the cloud, folks pop up indicating that they don't want to give up control of their software and/or data.
A few comments here...
First of all, this is Google's freely hosted service. You do actually get what you pay for. In this case, some vaguely-flaky software that I wouldn't rely on. It may be a handy way to collaborate or distribute documents... But I really wouldn't trust it with my only copy of a document.
Google does, however, have a paid service which is much more reliable and has clearly-written terms of service that tell you exactly what you're getting into.
You point out that things like this wouldn't happen with MS Office or OpenOffice... Well, that's partly true. You probably wouldn't have some cloud server telling you something is inappropriate. But you do run into other issues with locally run applications... Compatibility issues, updates, missing discs, corrupt files, etc. Not to say that locally run applications are a bad idea... I'm just reminding you that they aren't some kind of perfect solution either.
There's also some kind of assumption, more often than not, that moving things to the cloud would automatically put them beyond your control. This is not true. Google's freely hosted apps allow you to upload your own documents from local storage, and download documents from the cloud to your own local storage. So you can use the hosted apps much like you would MS Office or OpenOffice - albeit with a more cumbersome open/save process.
Additionally, the whole "cloud" thing is a pretty vague term. There is no good reason why all the clouds have to be owned and run by someone else. It may not make a whole lot of sense for a home user to set up their own cloud server with just three workstations to connect to it... But companies are already using web apps, terminal servers, thin clients, and whatever else to centralize their applications. Imagine a large company purchasing a Microsoft Office cloud server license instead of 1,000+ individual licenses of Microsoft Office. You install that cloud license on a single physical machine, or maybe a cluster, or whatever. And everyone in your company runs MS Office from the cloud server that your company owns. All the updates happen there, all the patches happen there... No need to install/manage/update/patch the MS Office installs on the local workstations.
And then there's the whole collaboration thing... Locally run installs of MS Office or OpenOffice are a pain in the ass when you're trying to collaborate with people. Write up your document, save it, distribute it... Oh, crap, it got caught by the spam filter. Talk to an admin, re-name a file, get it distributed... Damn, someone can't open that format... Re-save, re-distribute... Now you're getting email back from various people with their various changes, and you're having to integrate those changes... Re-save, re-distribute... Looks like someone's local app ate the formatting... Re-save, re-distribute... You get the idea.
I doubt if he actually has business cards with "IT guy" on them.
That's my whole point.
"IT Guy" is not his official title. It isn't his official position. It isn't what is listed on the organization chart, it isn't what he'd put on his resume, it isn't on his business cards.
"IT Guy" is just a vague way of indicating where in a company he fits. Like "Joe from Accounting" or "Betty from Sales" - this is "John from IT."
Regardless of what his actual title may be - if he works for the IT department, he's an "IT Guy."
If his company is big enough to have separate departments for "IT" and "Software" - then maybe he should suggest that he'd be a better fit in the Software department. But if his company only has an "IT" department, and that's where he works, he's an "IT Guy."
However, I think most people understand the difference between an HR manager, accountant and lawyer, and they would have different job titles even if they were all in an administration dept. It's unlikely they would all be called 'administration guy' and be expected to deal with the same queries, unless it's a really, really small company, in which case it's fair enough and everyone is expected to be versatile. I don't think IT is given the same respect/insight, so I think the article author's point stands.
Of course they'll have different job titles - just as I assume our "IT guy" is going to have some kind of official job title like "Senior Network Administrator" - but that doesn't really matter. We're talking about somebody who doesn't want to be called an "IT guy" even though he works in the "IT Department."
HR is responsible for human resources... Accounting is responsible for money... Legal is responsible for all the legal mumbo-jumbo...
So, where does payroll fit into things? Is that HR or Accounting?
How about whoever it is that handles things like the hiring and firing procedures... Does that fall under Legal, or HR?
I'm sure you've got people working in HR who have skillsets that more closely resemble folks in Accounting or Legal... Or you've got people who have duties that fall somewhere between the departmental lines... But you've still got to stick them on an organizational chart somewhere.
So you get guys in HR who don't know the first thing about hiring or firing people... Who went to years and years of school to learn all kinds of neat accounting stuff... But they're still in HR, whether they like it or not. And they'll still be introduced as "Joe from HR" - even if they don't like the association with the people who fire you. And maybe they'll be asked about some benefit package during lunch, and they won't be able to answer, because they don't know anything about benefits.
How does that differ from someone in IT who went to school for years and years to learn programming and has nothing to do with actually fixing a broken PC?
It may very well be that your average human being doesn't understand the intricacies of IT work... May not understand the subtle differences between a DBA and a network administrator (they're both administrators, right?) But that doesn't really have much to do with organizational charts.
If your company has an IT department, and you work in it, you're an IT guy. Just as you're an HR guy if you work in the HR department, and you're a Sales guy if you work in the Sales department.
This is my point, your father doesn't call himself a "health guy", he still refers to himself as an "eye doctor" which says 1) He's a doctor, not a nurse or an orderly and 2) He's specialized in eyes in some way.
It's the same way for most "IT guys" I know, it's not that they want to be called "senior database interface developer for Oracle cluster #4", they would just like people to at least acknowledge that they're developers and not "IT guys" much in the same way that most medical professionals I know would hate to be called "health guy/girl".
And my point, which you are stubbornly ignoring, is that the amount of specificity varies depending on the situation... And further that specificity is often un-necessary.
Depending on the situation, who he's talking to, and the context of the conversation my father may also refer to himself as a "business owner" or an "entrepreneur" as he owns his own practices. Or he might refer to himself as working in the "medical field" as that's basically what he does.
I think that you, and others in this discussion, are intentionally blurring the lines between entire fields of occupation and departments within a company.
At a given company, you're likely to have an HR department, an IT department, an Accounting department, maybe a Legal department, whatever. In introducing someone, you might very well refer to them as "Joe from Accounting" or "Betty from IT." This indicates in a very general way where they fit into the company.
If your company is big enough to have distinct departments such as "Software" or "Networking" then I would assume that Betty would be introduced as "Betty from Software." But if your company has no Software department, it doesn't make much sense to specify that, does it?
Calling someone a "health guy" doesn't make much sense as you're referring to a different structure all-together... You aren't referring to a department within your company, you're referring to an entire field of occupation. Unless your company has a Health department - in which case referring to someone as "Bob from Health" might make perfect sense.
When talking to people outside of my company, nobody cares whether I work in Accounting or Sales or Legal or wherever... Because they don't work for my company and don't care how I fit into the master plan. I might instead indicate that "I work for SuperCorp" or "I'm a programmer with SuperCorp" or I might just indicate that "I'm a programmer." It'll depend on the context of the conversation.
And when I'm speaking with folks who work at the local hospital, many of them simply state that they work "in the medical field" or "in medicine" or "at the hospital" - regardless of whether they're a lab technician, or a doctor, or a surgeon, or a nurse, or whatever.
Calling software development, network engineering, web design etc. all "IT" is a bit like calling HR, accounting and legal all "paperwork". I agree with the story author - the need to call everyone who produces or maintains software or hardware "IT" just shows how little most people understand the businesses they run and the people they employ. It's that reasoning that leads to (in small companies... hopefully) the pimply faced youth who reboots the servers being asked to design and deploy a mission-critical database because he 'knows about computers'. Your post typifies this: they're all "vaguely related to Information Technology" therefore they should be the same department? That makes no sense at all, and many companies get this wrong, wrong, wrong.
If this were a board dedicated to HR-related topics... Instead of IT-related topics... I'm sure we'd see people on here complaining that they don't like being referred to as an "HR guy." I'm also sure that you've at least once in your life referred to someone as "working in HR" or being "from HR" or having to go talk to "somebody in HR."
Is it accurate? Is it specific? No... But it doesn't need to be.
If your company is big enough to have an entire software department, I'm sure you get referred to as a "software guy" - because distinctions are usually made along departments rather than specific job duties. But if it isn't, if you only have an IT department, then that's what you're stuck with.
Some places are big enough to have separate HR, accounting, and legal departments... Other places are not, and just refer to those duties as "administration" or "management."
But at the end of the day you'll still say you went to the Dentist.
That's like saying "I went over to IT".
Yeah. That's kind of my point.
When I call an Electrician to fix something, I have no idea who they're sending out and who is doing the work in my house. It might be a fully licensed/qualified/insured Electrician... Or it might be one of their apprentices/trainees. I'll still refer to them as an Electrician. Same thing goes for Plumbers and Carpenters and whatever else...
Yeah, but there's still the implication that a tradesman fixed something and that he/she was either fully trained or an apprentice, the equivalent would be if all helpdesk guys occasionally got referred to as "software engineers" but no one really cared because 95% of them were training to become software engineers anyway.
Actually, the equivalent would be if all the helpdesk guys occasionally got referred to as "IT guys"...and the software engineers occasionally got referred to as "IT guys"...and the network administrators occasionally got referred to as "IT guys"...but no one really cared because 100% of them worked in IT.
If you check the contract I've signed with my employer it clearly states that my job involves software development and some related system administration, they can't legally force me to do helpdesk stuff, and it's definitely not part of my everyday duties, yet to most people at the company I'm an "IT guy", just like the keyboard replacement guy.
Go on over to the Sales department. Ask around there. You will find people who have contracts stipulating that they must actually sell products to customers... You'll find people who sell new products... People who sell upgrades... People who manage the people who sell things... People who attend trade shows and fish up new prospects... You get the idea. Their individual duties vary quite a bit from one person to the next. Their individual contracts will stipulate different requirements. But they're all working in the Sales department.
Just like you're working in the IT department.
And just as I'll refer to someone being generically "from Sales" or "in Marketing" - you'll get referred to generically as an "IT guy."
My point is that with IT/computers/software it gets "dumbed down" to "IT guy" while with other professions it tends to run the other way, you don't call all medical professionals "health people" or "orderlies", in fact most people seem to prefer accidentally calling a nurse a doctor than the other way around (because they know it's insulting to a doctor to be called a nurse while most nurses probably won't be insulted if someone mistakes them for a doctor).
Regardless of whether things get dumbed down to "IT guy" or dumbed up to "Doctor" - it is all a matter of generalization.
So you do software development? Would you prefer to be called a developer then? But that doesn't specify what kind of development you do, does it? Are you a web developer? Database? And it also doesn't specify whether you're an apprentice or actually know what you're doing...
You've probably got an official title that shows up somewhere on your business card or a sign on your desk - something like Lead Web Developer or Senior Database Developer or whatever. That's nice and specific and says something about your role in the company. But it won't really mean much to people who don't know what it means to develop software... Or what makes database development unique... Or the kind of effort it takes to become a "lead" or "senior" developer... To them, you just work with computers. Which makes you an IT guy.
My father is an optometrist. At conventions and whatnot, various professional environments, he will refer to himself as such. When around friends and family, h
Whether you're a programmer or are IT support is not simple a matter of studying something different... you could study software development and end up in IT support, or you could study biology and end up as a programmer. I don't think this is a matter of refering to someone's abilities, it's a matter of refering to what they actually do. If you work for a marketting company, but you just make the tea, it wouldn't really be correct to say "I work in marketing", because you don't, you just happen to work for a company that is in marketing. You wouldn't call the person who supports their IT needs a marketer any more than you'd call those in marketing 'programmers' because they use a computer.
I do believe you've misunderstood the parent.
Honestly, how often do we refer to some people as "He's from the marketing" without going into details. We are aware that marketing department has MBAs, it has interns, it has people who have studied IT, it has all these odd people who have studied language arts, philosophy or such... But we don't care. Why? To us it makes no difference what they have studied. We only care about what are their connections to us.
He's talking about departments within a company - not the company as a whole.
No, it may not make sense for someone in HR at IBM to say "I work in IT." But they will say "I work in HR." And people know what they mean. They know that his job with somehow be related to hiring and firing and managing human resources. Just as if you say "I work in IT" people know that your job is somehow related to computers.
Your knowledge of the subject may leave you having to round down, but that doesn't mean there's no need for accurate description, you don't need to understand the terms to understand the purpose of a little accuracy. Call a British person French, or a Canadian an American, you might live the other side of the world and so a few miles one way or another makes no different to you, but you can always bet that it matters to them. It's hardly a difficult thing to respect.
Ah, but now you're not talking about generalization so much as mis-categorization.
If someone called me an IT guy, and I actually worked in HR, I might be annoyed.
But if someone called me an American, when I actually live in New York, it'll be a little odd of me to get terribly upset.
That's what we're talking about here - classification and granularity.
I may be male, but I'm still human. I may be a New Yorker, but I'm still an American. I may be a network engineer, but I'm still in IT.
In my experience when lay people say "IT" they usually mean tech-support and cannot conceive of any other job. Which is why I do not like being called an IT person, since programming is nothing like it.
In my experience, when people say "IT" they usually mean network support.
Generally if someone is having a problem with their workstation or a bit of software they'll say they need to call "tech support."
If they're talking about a bug in some in-house bit of software they'll refer to the "software guys."
And if they can't talk to a server or their Internet isn't working, they'll call the "IT guys."
A cardiac surgeon doesn't know much otolaryngology; an EE doesn't know much about steam turbines; a personal injury lawyer isn't going to be much help with your corporate takeover.
Comparisons:
Now, don't you think those on the right side of the above descriptions would frown own being referred to as health/electric stuff/law guy if the terms had the meanings I gave them above? And for "IT guy" that's exactly how the term is commonly used, the guy who gives you a new keyboard when you spill coffee on it gets referred to as an "IT guy" and so do your senior developers and sysadmins, guess why they're grumpy about it...
/Mikael
Depending on the context of the conversation, I (and millions of other people) do use those groupings - and nobody cares.
Fine, if I schedule an appointment to visit my Doctor, I know they're a Doctor and I'll refer to them as such. But if I'm in the emergency room for some reason and somebody takes a look at my leg - I really don't know what their title is. Are they actually an MD? Are they just some high-ranking nurse? I dunno... And when I eventually leave and tell my boss/friends/family about the visit I'll just say "the folks at the ER told me it was OK."
A better example might be going to the Dentist. Usually there's just one or two actual Dentists, and a slew of hygienists. Depending on what you're having done, you might not even see a Dentist - just a hygienist. But at the end of the day you'll still say you went to the Dentist.
When I call an Electrician to fix something, I have no idea who they're sending out and who is doing the work in my house. It might be a fully licensed/qualified/insured Electrician... Or it might be one of their apprentices/trainees. I'll still refer to them as an Electrician. Same thing goes for Plumbers and Carpenters and whatever else...
A better example might be the folks who work for our local Cable Company. They've got some people who are familiar with networking and data transmission who work on the ISP side of things... And they've got some very basic installers who just drill holes and run cables... But they're frequently referred to as just the "Cable Guy."
Law guys are actually a great example... I'll call up a law office, retain a lawyer... But at least 50% of the work that's done and 50% of my money isn't actually going to the Lawyer. It'll be going to secretaries and paralegals and interns and whatever else. I'll get phone calls from folks besides the actual Lawyer, as well. I don't know what all their titles are. I'll just tell my wife "the lawyer says he needs this document" - and nobody cares if it was actually the paralegal who needed the document or the lawyer himself.
There is a reason why we don't refer to screwdrivers, circular saws and sanding machines all as "hammers". There is a reason why we have different words for "poisonous" and "tasty"... if you're not eating them, then just "berries" might be a sufficient description to you, but language evolves for a reason, we have vocabulary for a reason, description is important. Not understanding the different between two different terms shows you haven't been exposed to it. Not understanding that there could be important differences that may lie outside of what you've been exposed to show narrow mindedness. Personally, I'd rather go with the label of 'petty over my label' than that of 'deliberately ignorant', so I respect even the differences that I don't understand.
Normally, I'd agree with you. I'm a big fan of using the appropriate words for the appropriate things. It frustrates me to no end to see people appropriating words for their own purposes and completely mis-using the English language.
However, "IT" is more of a generic label than a specific title. It refers to an entire department - just as "HR" does. Not everyone in HR is a manager... Nor do they all do the same job... Nor are they all on the same pay grade... But they're all in HR.
Same thing goes for Marketing, or Sales, or whatever. They indicate a department, or a general function within a company, not a specific job title or duties.
So this guy doesn't like being called the "IT Guy"... Well, that is a bit vague... I would assume his official title would be more along the lines of "IT Manager" or "Network Technician" or "Software Developer" or whatever... But he'll still be working in the IT department - as his work is at least vaguely related to Information Technology.
How much more can we write about Louis Pasteur or the Treaty of Worms or Heilongjiang? Wikipedia has had a ton of stuff poured into it and doesn't really need new contributors.
Agreed.
Wikipedia isn't really like a normal web community or collaborative effort... It is an on-line encyclopedia. Once you've got a good, thorough article about something... You don't really need to keep revisiting it all the time. Sure, if some new bit of evidence pops up - fine, add it in. But it isn't like you need an army of contributors to keep a lot of this stuff fresh.
And even if every single contributor were to leave today, you'll still have Wikipedia. You'll still have tons of content about tons of stuff. It'd still be a useful reference.
1) We have a junk disposal problem with computers anyway; clogging it further with cheap machines isn't an answer.
The reason we have a junk disposal problem is because the average consumer doesn't care about it. And since the average consumer doesn't care about it, it won't be an issue in rolling out more cheap machines.
2) The decent machines cost money. Face it: quality costs, and subsidies by carriers/telcos/etc are false economy
I agree that you generally get what you pay for. I understand that subsidies by carriers aren't actually making anything cheaper. But it does make things more accessible. If Verizon will give me a phone for "free" when I sign a two-year contract, that's all most people will see. And as far as actually getting a decent machine? Look around you. Disposability reigns supreme.
3) You certainly jest when you reply, 'Maybe. Maybe not.' Who do you think you're kidding? Tethered broadband costs lots of $$ in the US, and the carriers are having trouble dishing up what they have (no fights regarding Verizon vs AT&T, etc.). Subsidized cell phones are the same scam.
I do not jest, nor am I trying to kid anyone. I don't know what kind of leverage Google may have... I have no idea what kind of income they could make off a netbook... I don't know what kind of network infrastructure they might have... It might be cost-prohibitive to provide cellular data on a free netbook, it might not be.
4) Netbooks fill a need, and I see that need. It also means that the cloud/SaaS apps that are required to be used to do something real are probably going to be tethered to a provider. ChromeOS means you better love Google.... or it will be difficult (probably not impossible) to move to someone else's meager offerings. Google's service levels aren't guaranteed, and if they're offline for whatever reason, go fish.
Unless Google's free netbooks become more of a platform than a service themselves. I'm sure software companies would be happy to pay a fee to Google to make their new SaaS offerings available on Google's netbooks. And keep in mind that Google does have paid versions of their services.
5) The average consumer REELS at having to dump their $500 machine every three years. They would (and so would I) prefer to invest every five or even more years in new hardware. But the stuff breaks, and is subject to the madness of Moore's Law, keeping up with the joneses, and so on. Six months? Ye Gawds, Man.
Not because of the price... Or some emotional attachment to the hardware... Because of the data. It's a pain in the ass to move all your pictures and documents over to a new machine... Re-install all your software... But if everything lives on the cloud? What if you just put your username & password into any netbook and it suddenly becomes just like your home computer? All your data, all your programs... Because everything lives on the cloud.
6) A good tool is a good tool. In my cabinet are lots of tools that are older than I am, and I'm a half-century-plus. These tools stand the test of time because they're quality devices. The concept of a disposable machine is as abhorent as disposable razors. If they can't built it well enough to withstand average use over a decent lifecycle, then they shouldn't build it at all. Look at the fate of General Motors for questions.
In case you hadn't noticed, disposable razors are pretty popular.
And I think this gets to the crux of our disagreement. You have a problem against disposable razors. You think something should be built to last and continue to be used for years. That's fine. That's a choice you can make. But that's not a value that everyone else holds. Like it or not, many people out there are just fine with their disposable razors. They're perfectly happy to buy cheap bits of plastic and throw them away, day
Why would I want a netbook, free or not? You have to have demand first before you think of price, and even at price 0, demand is not infinite (you've got to carry the thing home, find a place to stash it, etc. - there are costs involved in addition to the price).
So no. Even for free, I wouldn't have a use for it. The whole netbook thing is pointless anyways and will soon blow over.
You may not want a netbook, but I think there is demand.
For myself, it would be handy to have something small and portable that can browse the web. It'd be handy for checking email while on the road... But it would also be nice to have something small and lightweight that was able to bring up a webUI on a router - so I don't have to balance my laptop on top of the ladder with me in the wiring closet. The ability to read PDFs or such would be very nice as well.
For Joe Sixpack... Let's be honest, most folks see a computer as essentially disposable already. I don't know how many people I hear from who just buy some $300 special at WalMart or Sam's Club around Christmas time... They'll use it for about a year and then replace it because the thing was crap to begin with and is now full of garbage. If they can get a free (or very cheap) netbook and use it to log into Facebook and check their email, I'm sure there'll be tons of demand.
On another note: I'm very surprised that people are all that interested in what is, essentially, a SpyOS. Forget tracking cookies - this OS is going to be tracking people's behavior 24 hours a day.
Not to provide any ideas into advanced Spywware under the guise of "free useful PC" but imagine if there is a GPS in the netbook that is able to track the users' movements. Traffic patterns, of the individual, could be analyzed and combined with other users and applicable advertising will show up for 'popular' products both in on-line advertising and roadside billboards.
I don't want to get too far off topic so I'll ask this question: When did we turn the corner of being Anti-Spyware to being Pro-Spyware?
I don't know that it's really a question of being anti- or pro-spyware so much as whether we're being paranoid or pragmatic.
I've got a Garmin, it's handy for getting me where I need to go. However, it's theoretically possible that someone could subpoena the GPS logs on it to find out where I've been. I'm not sure how useful that would be... I don't know if the logs are timestamped or anything... But it could happen.
So, what, do I throw away my Garmin because it's spying on me?
Cell phones can give your approximate location if you call 911... Should I throw away my cell phone because it's spying on me?
Sure, this new Google netbook thing could become the ultimate SpyOS. GPS tracking...ability to phone home...reading your email...watching your surfing habits... But to what end? This thing would be distributed by Google - they're not going to steal your credit card number and run off to Jamaica. They're going to serve you ads.
Big freaking deal. I don't need a netbook spying on me to get served with ads. Just about every web page I bring up has ads on it... If I call a company I'll likely have to listen to them advertise their services while I'm on hold... If I turn on the TV I'll be hit with one ad after another... Same thing goes for the radio... If I open up a newspaper, or magazine, or even just walk down the street... Advertising is everywhere. Why would I care if Google throws a couple more ads at me?
Yeah, I suppose the government could get some kind of a wiretap on it... Or law enforcement could subpoena some logs... But, again, to what end? I'm not saying if you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about? I'm saying it's too late for those kinds of privacy concerns.
The US Government has already admitted to illegally wiretapping tons of citizens. We've got people being held for years before being charged with anything. Everyone and their brother has a cell phone with a camera in it. We've got security cameras all over stores and shopping centers. You actually think you've got any kind of privacy these days?
If I was really worried about privacy, I wouldn't be starting with Google's new SpyOS netbook. I'd have to close my bank accounts and cancel my credit cards... Start doing business exclusively in cash... I'd have to cancel my cell phones, throw away my GPS... I'd have to move someplace far more rural... I'd have to do everything on-line through TOR or something equivalent... Actually, I'm not sure that I'd even want to keep my Internet connection, nor any of the other utilities. If I was genuinely concerned about privacy I'd likely be living in a cave somewhere completely off the grid.
I can see hotels, conference centers, and the like providing computers "brought to you by Google" or for that matter any advertising partner.
Most of the hotels I've stayed at in the last several years have some kind of public terminal in the lobby already.
Unless they're literally handing you a computer to keep, I don't see the whole "brought to you by Google" thing being any different than what we have now.
Of course, to be a winner with businesses they would have to allow VPNs to work and would have to guarentee there were no keyloggers or other security issues with the device. That should be easy enough to promise if the device boots over the network from an authenticated and trusted source and the machine were epoxy-sealed to prevent tampering.
I have a hard time seeing a business that security conscious allowing you to connect with some random netbook you were given for free.
I'd take several dozen, probably hundreds... hardware can't be given away. I think.... I'd wallpaper my house with monitors. I'm sure I could make a nice server/web ap to run all the buggers even if I couldn't take the hardware apart.
Basically, the idea is impossible and stupid.
Limit 1 per customer.
Not available locally, have to sign up on-line with a unique name/phone number/address that it will be shipped to - so they can make sure you aren't abusing things too badly.
They used to give away all sorts of goodies when you opened a new bank account... They were even giving away iPods at one of the local banks for a while.
I won't use a machine which is useless without network. I don't like to rely on an internet connection because some times it breaks. I want to be able to store files on my computer and use it on the plane. And I want to be able to do it off-line. I want all my tools locally, I need LaTeX to work, I need a compiler, I need scientific visualization tools.
I believe in free-as-in-speech software and I don't see how GoogleOS really fits into it.
I do believe you've completely missed the point.
If the device is little more than a portable web browser, what would you do with it offline?
Netbooks are not intended to run LaTeX or compilers or scientific visualization... They're intended to surf the web, log on to Facebook, and check your email.
Fine, you need LaTeX and compilers and scientific visualization to work... But you're on vacation, on a road trip somewhere. You've stopped at a rest stop somewhere that offers free WiFi and you're wondering if that book you ordered has shipped yet. Do you really need offline storage, gigs of RAM, and a quad-core CPU to check your email? Are you going to compile up a new email client there in the parking lot? Do you routinely craft your email messages in LaTeX?
It would be a freaking toy.
Toy or not, it might be very handy to pull up my email on the road. Or check the prices on Amazon/NewEgg/wherever while I'm out shopping.
You'd end up using your main computer because at that price, the darn thing is almost disposable.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...
The point is basically that the thing would be disposable. I worry a hell of a lot less about a brand new HDD than one that's got years worth of data stored on it. And if it's all cloud-based, then the netbook itself has little more than some bootstrapping on it. If it breaks, you chuck it and get a new one. They're free after all.
But I wouldn't end up using my main computer... Because my main computer is a big box with a bunch of cables, a couple monitors, a keyboard, a mouse, and it all requires a power outlet. So I can't very well haul it around with me when I'm on the road. And I can't very well fire it up at a rest stop somewhere to see if I've got any important email to worry about.
And if it had a cell modem in it, it would end up costing you a lot more than free, $150/whatever.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Hardware costs keep coming down. And I'm sure if Google starts giving these things away for free we'll see mass production and price drops pretty quick.
Partnering with a wireless carrier might be more difficult... Amazon and Barnes & Noble have both managed it... But they didn't do it for free products... I guess it'd come down to how much revenue Google thinks they can generate from the thing.
Plastic tinker-toy tools are for those that just play around. Buying something with quality helps-- despite the fact that today's quad-core notebook has a half-life of only three years if we're lucky.
I think you're missing the point.
For the average consumer, a computer is basically disposable right now. They'll buy some $300 special at Dell, use it for a year, and then replace it because the thing is too full of crap to be used.
If they can get a netbook for free that is able to check their email and log in to Facebook, I'm sure they'll jump all over it. Even if the thing dies in only 6 months.
For those of us who actually buy quality hardware that lasts for 3+ years with no trouble, this isn't going to be a replacement for your main computer. But it might make a nice addition. Again, I don't have a portable little machine to haul around with me when I travel. A free netbook might be very nice in that capacity.
As nice as it is to think that advertisements will cover everything, a single user isn't worth a $150+ netbook. Actually single user is worth a lot less for Google and other companies.
Who says the netbook will cost $150?
Hardware keeps getting cheaper... And if everything lives in the cloud then you really need virtually no local storage. Just a screen, keyboard, and some kind of Internet connection.
What if the netbook only costs $100? $50?
Lets say Google gets around $2 CPM on normal searches. That means a single search is worth something like $0.002 for Google. It's going to take lots of searches and ad clicks from every user to even cover the costs of the netbook. And the same users would be doing those searches and ad clicks anyway, so it serves no purpose.
What about advertising that's physically on the netbook itself? Like logos and graphics and whatnot?
Companies pay good money to advertise on billboards and in movies and on the sides of busses. You could take the low-tech approach and just slap some logos on the thing... You know Google would have their logo on it somewhere. Someone asks you at work or wherever - where'd you get the netbook? - oh, it's free, check out netbook.google.com Gets Google another user looking at the ads on their free netbook.
And you could slap some FedEx or WalMart or whatever other signage on it. I'm sure companies would happily pay a few dollars to slap a logo on a netbook that you'll be using in public on a more-or-less daily basis.
Or you could take a more high-tech approach and put an epaper display on the back of the screen... Orient it so that other people can read it while you're using the netbook... Google could tie that feed right into their AdSense program. Of course that'd be a bigger ad... Something with some graphics and whatnot... And it'd be visible to more than just the person using the netbook... So Google could charge extra for that ad space.
Another thing is that search result advertisements and even ads on gmail are worth more because they can be really targeted. But what do you advertise on a spreadsheet app? Users aren't looking for any info or such - they're working on their spreadsheet.
Why, you advertise a competing spreadsheet app, of course! Microsoft can advertise their new and improved LiveSpreadsheet... Or their own free netbook program... Someone can roll up a new cloud-based spreadsheet app and advertise it... Or Google can advertise their professional spreadsheet app... More built-in functions, no advertising, priority cloud processing... Maybe you can advertise QuickBooks Cloud Edition or something like that, especially if you serve up ads based on content like Gmail does now.
It's just out of the question that a single user would be worth $150 for Google.
Again, I don't know that Google needs $150 from each user. Maybe you're only worth $75 to Google... But Joe over in accounting is worth $300... So Google still makes enough money to support both of you. And that's assuming that the netbooks actually cost $150 each.
But I think you're being short-sighted. You're only looking at AdSense impressions - not the new possibilities that these netbooks present. Not just new possibilities for advertising either...
The free netbook could easily become a platform to deliver software as a service. Intuit could pay Google a fee to advertise this year's edition of TurboTax... And then pay another fee to host the cloud-based version of TurboTax... And then you could pay Intuit to use this year's version of TurboTax.
Yes, I know, software as a service is evil... You'll never trust your data to the cloud...
But if Joe Sixpack can get a free netbook, and this year's TurboTax Cloud Edition for only $20... Instead of buying a PC and full-priced TurboTax... I think they'll manage to move a lot of free netbooks and a lot of TurboTax Cloud Editions.
It does mean that whatever killer apps may come out, the iPhone is less likely to have it than others. That in turn will decide if the iPhone will continue to succeed or will become a has-been.
Ultimately, the consumer will care about the various "killer apps". Whichever phone has them will win.
Very true.
However, which app is "killer" depends entirely on the consumer.
The "killer app" for one user might be an open source platform in general. The "killer app" for another user might be this Vlingo thing. The "killer app" for someone else might be the iPhone OS so they can keep using all the other apps that they're familiar with. The "killer app" for someone else might be seamless integration with whatever strange mail server they run at the office.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Vlingo's app is crippled on the iPhone because of Apple policies. It may not be everyone's killer app, but it is for some. The same policies are equally likely to cripple other people's ideas of the killer app. That in turn leads more and more people who do the research and choose the phone that runs whatever they consider to be the "must have" app to decide against the iPhone whose crippling policies kill their favorite app.
When one platform is highly restricted and another is wide open, useful apps will tend to be ported TO the open platform and not away from it.
No I'm not.
I understand that the iPhone is a less open platform. I understand that Apple is refusing to carry various apps for no reason other than they don't want to. I understand that this may very well lead to people choosing other phones.
None of that has much to do with my original statement.
If your major criteria for a new phone is a fairly open platform where developers can roll out software without some other company telling them NO just for the hell of it, the iPhone is not the phone for you.
That does not necessarily make it a flawed product, nor does it mean that anybody is lacking vision. All it means is that this isn't the product for you.
I'll admit that I don't have a smartphone of any kind. I don't have a Blackberry or an iPhone or anything. I have no idea what redeeming qualities any particular smartphone may or may not have. But the fact that Apple is selling millions of these things suggests to me that somebody out there is buying them.
If a company like Vlingo can extend the functionality of smartphones like the Blackberry, Android, etc. in ways that Apple and others never seriously considered then I'll very likely go with those phones in the future, and not one that's artificially restricted due to the limited vision of people like Steve Jobs.
It isn't really a matter of vision...
No single product is going to meet the requirements of everyone, everywhere. That's why there are different kinds of smartphones out there, all of them making money.
So you're really impressed with this Vlingo stuff and you want to use it - well, by all means, buy a phone that it'll run on. But maybe someone else doesn't care about that... Maybe what someone else really wants is a phone that integrates nicely with their iTunes, or a phone that uses the same apps as their iPod Touch, or maybe they're just really hooked on some random app that's only available on the iPhone, or maybe they're a Mac developer and want to show some brand loyalty... Who knows?
The point is that there are an awful lot of people out there who are very happy with their Vlingo-crippled iPhones. Just as there are plenty of people out there who are utterly miserable with their Vling-enabled Blackberries.
Do your research and buy the product that meets your needs.
Whatever the pathways involved, say we discover some incredibly complex mechanism that regulates muscle mass; it still won't solve the basic problem. Being in free-fall or "zero g" for long enough causes involution of muscle and deteriorates bone strength. Now perhaps some pharmaceutical company can be persuaded to invest billions of dollars, one this pathway is discovered, to invent a drug that blocks it and thus lets astronaut keep their muscles. Then they will sell the pills to NASA and other space programs, at $1 million per pill.
Frankly wouldn't it be better to understand the relationship between gravity and muscle mass/bone density, and work on ways to simulate gravity instead? Methinks it would be far cheaper, AND resolve the situation.
As with most space-related stuff, there are applications beyond the realm of 0 G environments.
Muscles atrophy here on Earth as well. Folks who are immobilized due to injuries or illness suffer muscle loss. In some cases it requires an awful lot of physical therapy to get that muscle back. In other cases it just isn't possible to fix.
Assuming we're able to discover "some incredibly complex mechanism that regulates muscle mass" - that information can be applied down here on Earth as well.
And if a pharmaceutical company does invest billions of dollars into inventing a drug that blocks it, they won't just be selling it to NASA.