OK, so it's an Orwellian headline, but you do start to wonder if Microsoft's Windows-as-service will be a force to reignite consumer broadband in a few years.
"Push" sure didn't get consumer broadband to the tipping point; neither did e-commerce, voice over IP or Joe Cartoon's not-ready-for-TV rich media.
But here's the thing: Short of Intel declaring that all machines using its chips need a broadband connection, about the broadest way to encourage Bubba PC User into broadband is to tweak the OS in such a way that it forces involuntary connections -- connections for things like product activation, Passport use, etc.
There's a mountain of DSL research that says Bubba was buying DSL (when he bought it at all) primarily for the always-on feature, not for the speed. Folks don't like the dial-up process. Well, Microsoft is heading down a path that will force a lot more dialing up, so it's a safe bet there might be a lot more interest in always-on connections.
Yeah, I know: A chicken-and-egg scenario -- is Microsoft betting that pervasive Internet connectivity means less consumer fussing over the forced connections or are they assuming that people will find easier ways to make connections if they're forced to do it more often? Not sure the answer matters, really... but it's safe to assume XP (or, more likely, the sure-to-be-more-invasive successor to XP) will send more consumers down the broadband path.
The problem for those who worry about privacy issues is that, most of the time, they're fighting the right battles without paying attention to the popular ones.
Cameras on the streets an issue? Yep. But it's hard to scare Joe Citizen (JC) with something that's being done in a foreign country or simply *might* be implemented here. What's more, most people most of the time don't have to hide while hanging out in a mall or on a city street. Finding a lowest-common-denominator issue is crucial if we're going to get more people on the privacy bandwagon.
Much better, from a conversion standpoint: Take something JC has grown very comfy with and sees as benign, and then scare the hell out of him.
Privacy advocates should be stirring the fear pot not with encryption issues and potential street cameras, but instead with tales of how very unprivate the Web, AOL's Instant Message, Yahoo Chat and similar systems are. Rationale:
With something north of 50 million people using these systems (and something like 20-30% of AOL's total login time devoted to chat), chat is a populist issue. And, as anyone who's spent more than 30 seconds in a chat room knows, 90% of what's said in them isn't necessarily the sort of thing Joe Citizen wants logged.
Like every new communication medium (radio may be the exception), purveyors of adult content were some of the newest and most aggressive adopters of these new technologies... and (this is the important part) they always found an expanding market as perceived privacy improved. (Not preaching, just reporting...) But unlike books and unlike adult theaters, today's technology means you can indulge your fetishes without leaving home or directly interacting with anyone else. That's what's fueled the huge growth in adult entertainment. Some people realize that being able to view this stuff at home is not the same as privacy, but Joe Citizen assumes it is.
Bottom line: Joe Citizen probably doesn't care much about the cameras going in down on Main Street and he probably doesn't get all that bent out of shape about the fact that Visa knows he buys a certain brand of ice cream twice a month.
But chances are, he'd probably be damned nervous if he really knew (in plain English -- not techie-speak) how much the world could tell about him based on his Web surfing, his AOL chats and his illicit, late-night credit card purchases at www.nekked-teens-on-a-stick.com. Tapping into that nervousness might not lead diretly to relief from the assault on secure crypto; but it could put consumer privacy in the spotlight... and that's a big start.
Actually, the comparison with Google is a good one -- both companies have been:
(relatively, in this market) slow to play the IPO-cash-in card; and
both have built up huge loyalty bases before going to the public markets for capital.
I don't have a specific opinion on whether either company will do well once they go public, but they both occupy very similar space: They are staking out a small point of time, mindshare and convenience in a transaction -- an information transaction in Google's case, and a financial one with PayPal.
They're more than enablers and less than guarantors (info you find on Google might be crap, as might the crotchless panties you picked up on Ebay).
As a meta-model for a business, it's a good one -- Realtors, some attorneys and certainly non-IT consultants of most stripes make their living by getting in between a desire and a thing/idea that will realize that desire.
Slashdot Mirror
"Push" sure didn't get consumer broadband to the tipping point; neither did e-commerce, voice over IP or Joe Cartoon's not-ready-for-TV rich media.
But here's the thing: Short of Intel declaring that all machines using its chips need a broadband connection, about the broadest way to encourage Bubba PC User into broadband is to tweak the OS in such a way that it forces involuntary connections -- connections for things like product activation, Passport use, etc.
There's a mountain of DSL research that says Bubba was buying DSL (when he bought it at all) primarily for the always-on feature, not for the speed. Folks don't like the dial-up process. Well, Microsoft is heading down a path that will force a lot more dialing up, so it's a safe bet there might be a lot more interest in always-on connections.
Yeah, I know: A chicken-and-egg scenario -- is Microsoft betting that pervasive Internet connectivity means less consumer fussing over the forced connections or are they assuming that people will find easier ways to make connections if they're forced to do it more often? Not sure the answer matters, really... but it's safe to assume XP (or, more likely, the sure-to-be-more-invasive successor to XP) will send more consumers down the broadband path.
Future conversation...
Geek acolyte: Whatcha runnin'?
Elder Geek:I've got SkyOS emulating Slackware, with WINE layered over that so I can use all my l00t wArEz.
Acolyte:Cool! How'z Mozilla run on it?
Elder: Still a little buggy -- but imagine a beowulf cluster of these...
(wait a little longer...)
(almost here...)
... the Immaculate Misconception: Believing that Jar-Jar Binks was a good idea. Ever.
Cameras on the streets an issue? Yep. But it's hard to scare Joe Citizen (JC) with something that's being done in a foreign country or simply *might* be implemented here. What's more, most people most of the time don't have to hide while hanging out in a mall or on a city street. Finding a lowest-common-denominator issue is crucial if we're going to get more people on the privacy bandwagon.
Much better, from a conversion standpoint: Take something JC has grown very comfy with and sees as benign, and then scare the hell out of him.
Privacy advocates should be stirring the fear pot not with encryption issues and potential street cameras, but instead with tales of how very unprivate the Web, AOL's Instant Message, Yahoo Chat and similar systems are. Rationale:
Bottom line: Joe Citizen probably doesn't care much about the cameras going in down on Main Street and he probably doesn't get all that bent out of shape about the fact that Visa knows he buys a certain brand of ice cream twice a month.
But chances are, he'd probably be damned nervous if he really knew (in plain English -- not techie-speak) how much the world could tell about him based on his Web surfing, his AOL chats and his illicit, late-night credit card purchases at www.nekked-teens-on-a-stick.com. Tapping into that nervousness might not lead diretly to relief from the assault on secure crypto; but it could put consumer privacy in the spotlight... and that's a big start.
I don't have a specific opinion on whether either company will do well once they go public, but they both occupy very similar space: They are staking out a small point of time, mindshare and convenience in a transaction -- an information transaction in Google's case, and a financial one with PayPal.
They're more than enablers and less than guarantors (info you find on Google might be crap, as might the crotchless panties you picked up on Ebay).
As a meta-model for a business, it's a good one -- Realtors, some attorneys and certainly non-IT consultants of most stripes make their living by getting in between a desire and a thing/idea that will realize that desire.
Hell, it's easier than selling widgets.