How many of those 2.5 Billion people in the third and developing world will be able to afford $1000 dollars for a PC? So few that they are barely a blip on the Intels balance sheets.
Even Ordinary working people in the western/developed world are Wealth in comparison.
The PC is dead, it just doesn't know it yet. Mobile connectivity is only one of a range of disruptive technologies which are set to finish the PC in the home/consumer market.
The future of personal computing is most definitely thin. The Digital STB will replace the PC in the Home, because they're simpler and cheaper, the essential qualities of a disruptive technology. Why would a consumer pay a £/$1000 for a PC or a £/$500 for a WebTV box when they can get an STB or games console £/$200. STB's in fact don't even cost that to a consumer, because the business models for Interactive services charge for services not for the Box, to the customer the STB is apparently free.
The PC can only compete in the high end markets, where the function is more important than price and these markets are not in the home. Combine this with the fact that the majority of current Netizens are rich by world standards;
Just how is the PC supposed to compete with a Free STB ?
The PC will be under constant attack from the low end markets. Games Console & STB will eat into the lower margin mass markets which the PC manufacturers will be unwilling or unable to defend. The incumbent PC manufactures will enjoy smaller bulk discounts, the relatively cost of a PC will climb until home PC markets will cease to exist in any really way.
The laptops are already being replaced by thin client phones and PDA's. A consumer can share a common address space for all their client devices with their service provider, this will include a common communications message space which includes email, fax and mobile and voice mail.
The convergence of Games Consoles, Digital STB's and mobile devices is accelerating this trend.
In the same way that the Big Iron was replaced by simpler/cheaper Mini's, which where subsequently replaced by a simpler/cheaper PC's. The PC will be superseded by a convergent Console/STB.
Whilst the article waffles on a lot, it does make some good points, but it also seems to miss a fundamental one. The effect on the wide spread piracy of the top games titles, the games companies are looking for new methods of distribution. However most haven't noticed it's already here; Games on Demand. This is enabled by a change, the convergence of Games Consoles and Digital STB's. These both broadly require the same sorts of functions. A CPU & memory, audio & video and networking. Tie these together with xDSL or Cable and you've got the disruptive technology that will ultimately finish the PC in most homes. Now before you mod this flamebait, think about this for a moment. What is required from a disruptive technology? It does not need to be better, it does not even need to be as good. It needs to be simpler and cheaper. It attacks from the low end, eating into the lower margin markets which the incumbent does not bother defending. It is for this reason that WebTV is doomed, it's based on PC technology, it too big, too complex, and too expensive. Why should an *ordinary consumer* buy a $1000 PC or a $500 WebTV box when I can get a $200 console or STB that will do the key things. The PC is dead, long live the PC.
Speeding 'offences' in the UK are a joke, everybody knows it, some just refuse to accept it, these regulations are not about safety they are a back door taxation scheme, why do you think the previous government introduced the points system in the first place? So you don't get banned for speeding you get fined instead and the government gets more revenue.
Personally I can't see this ever happening, it's like banning smoking, it won't happen because the government would lose too much money.
I don't agree, this is also not an issue of unsolicited goods, firstly this guy appears to have ordered WebTV box and a WebTV box was delivered. To all intensive purposes this guy got what he ordered; that the box was a prototype is immaterial to him.
If Microsoft wanted the box back it becomes a civil dispute not a criminal one. It's completely overkill to send the Police. IMB It's borderline Police harassment, combined this with the fact he's apparently a Banker, his honesty and integrity need to be beyond reproach, I think he's got a pretty good case for defamation of character. OTOH, he bough Microsoft so he probably got what he deserved:)
However the Police are not supposed to be corporate lackeys, they are here to protect people from crime, not enforcing questionable civil disputes. IMHO the Guy should sue, probably both the NYPD and Microsoft, he's certainly got a stronger case than moron's who don't know coffee is hot.
I'm sure many/most here would agree that patents are unethical because they stifle innovation and protect established commercial interests. INHO a truly creative business does not need protection, it simply innovates it's self above the competition, it does not need to 'protect' it's inventions.
However I don't believe a boycott of Amazon is the best course to challenge the patent system in this instance, I believe boycotting Amazon would probably be counter productive. A boycott, if successful would only result in Amazon dropping the action, it would not break the patent.
It's in our interests to use the system to benefit openness as much as possible, this patent should be broken in court on 'obviousness' and 'prior-art' grounds. If you want to take positive action aid the company challenging the patent, through research into prior art.
A boycott of a patent holder should be saved for a patent that is on solid ground in law, but needs to be challenged to benefit all.
This system is quite primitive compared to what's possible, but I'm going to have to use this as an opportunity to plug our site about the service we offer.
http://www.kitv.co.uk
If you live in Hull in the UK you can have it today but if you live in some backwater, you'll have to wait:)
Kingston Interactive TV is delivered as IP over ADSL, it includes Interactive & Digital TV, Real Video on Demand, High speed Internet Access and a Local Link. This tech is amazing.
I'd just like to add a few comments to my post after considering the responses to it. There have of course been exceptions, on both sides, but my prevalent experience is as described. That the majority contractors have such a high opinion of themselves is to be expected, it's probably a key requirement to be able step outside the presumed security of a permanent role. I don't hold this against contractors I simply accept it as a fact of life. IMNSHO it's this inherent self belief which gives them the tendency to over state their knowledge or experience. When you consider that the key cost in the life cycle of software is maintenance, the initial engineering is extremely important and ensuring the adherence to standards is critical. The short terms that contractors stay before moving means they lack knowledge of the software framework, these are a particular headaches which requires the close supervision. It is possible I've had an untypically bad experience because of rates, but I do feel that this just serves to emphasise a key issue of how the individual is motivated.
I'm not convinced that creation of lots of Baby Bills is the solution to the Microsoft monopoly. We would be left with a cartel of dominant players with a common interest rather than a one. This could even make the situation worse. One of the key barrier to new entrants to the OS market for desktops is the difficulty of supporting multiple OS's on a single PC. The fact that all versions of Windows actively work against the installation of a second OS is a key barrier to entry. The most effective method of opening any market is the removal of entry barriers. Therefore the DOJ should force Microsoft to include a boot loader which supported the loading of alternate Operating Systems. If the DOJ also forced a very tight deadline on this functionality, for example saying this must be present in the release of Win2000. Microsoft would be forced to licence existing technology from another company and therefore would find it much more difficult to subvert this requirement.
I'm salaried, so are my boys primarily because it's more professional. I agree that job security is not a key issue in either instance because of the skills shortage. In fact experienced technical staff can pick and choose, even the incompetent.
The reluctance of the staff in the original post to go hourly could be because of the stigma. I think you should view this as a positive thing. If you did choose to *force* them to got hourly you would lose a considerable amount of good will, they will become unhappy and productivity will suffer.
Those motivated by interesting/challenging work choose those roles, they don't mind working extra hours for free if the work is interesting, as it happens these roles tend to be in emerging technologies. I'm always chosen these roles and do good enough on the salary front to indulge my vices so I'm happy.
Those motivated by money choose to contract thinking about all those extra hours overtime they can rack up, they have no incentive to finish the job on time or within budget, in fact the incentive is exactly the opposite. As a general rule the only way to make them happy by throwing money at them, if the project/business can afford it, fine if not, your stuffed.
In my experience contractors tend to be those that can't hold a permanent job down, often big headed and narrow minded. They typically shoot off coding like they shoot off their mouths, claim all sorts of experience and knowledge which rarely pans out. They are unable or unwilling to follow company standards, having no incentive to do the job properly or future proof their output because they don't have to maintain it.
As a rule they have to be supervised so closely by permanent staff that I no longer tolerate them on my projects, I'm fortunate my current boss agrees partly for budget reasons but mainly because of his techie background.
As for those that will claim this is jealousy of the hourly rates paid to contractors, you're forgetting the fringe benefits for permanent staff. The most significant being share options, in my case after 6 months in my current position its already worth nearly a years salary. When it matures in three years it will probably be worth enough to retire, but I'll keep on working for the challenge and interest, how many contractors can honestly claim they would?
>Open Source isn't magic pixie dust, so why insist that it is essential for success, totemising the openness of source as essential for success?
Whilst Open Source is not *essential* for success, it makes success more likely, because Open Source is Darwinian in character.
It promotes 'survival of the fittest' within each environment, the user selects the best distribution, which uses the best modules from the best programmers. Open source in naturally adaptive to the environment with differing environments promoting different distributions. Low entry barriers, encourage competition which promotes fierce selection of the fittest,
Slashdot Mirror
How many of those 2.5 Billion people in the third and developing world will be able to afford $1000 dollars for a PC? So few that they are barely a blip on the Intels balance sheets.
Even Ordinary working people in the western/developed world are Wealth in comparison.
The PC is dead, it just doesn't know it yet. Mobile connectivity is only one of a range of disruptive technologies which are set to finish the PC in the home/consumer market.
The future of personal computing is most definitely thin. The Digital STB will replace the PC in the Home, because they're simpler and cheaper, the essential qualities of a disruptive technology. Why would a consumer pay a £/$1000 for a PC or a £/$500 for a WebTV box when they can get an STB or games console £/$200. STB's in fact don't even cost that to a consumer, because the business models for Interactive services charge for services not for the Box, to the customer the STB is apparently free.
The PC can only compete in the high end markets, where the function is more important than price and these markets are not in the home. Combine this with the fact that the majority of current Netizens are rich by world standards;
Just how is the PC supposed to compete with a Free STB ?
The PC will be under constant attack from the low end markets. Games Console & STB will eat into the lower margin mass markets which the PC manufacturers will be unwilling or unable to defend. The incumbent PC manufactures will enjoy smaller bulk discounts, the relatively cost of a PC will climb until home PC markets will cease to exist in any really way.
The laptops are already being replaced by thin client phones and PDA's. A consumer can share a common address space for all their client devices with their service provider, this will include a common communications message space which includes email, fax and mobile and voice mail.
The convergence of Games Consoles, Digital STB's and mobile devices is accelerating this trend.
In the same way that the Big Iron was replaced by simpler/cheaper Mini's, which where subsequently replaced by a simpler/cheaper PC's. The PC will be superseded by a convergent Console/STB.
Whilst the article waffles on a lot, it does make some good points, but it also seems to miss a fundamental one. The effect on the wide spread piracy of the top games titles, the games companies are looking for new methods of distribution. However most haven't noticed it's already here; Games on Demand. This is enabled by a change, the convergence of Games Consoles and Digital STB's. These both broadly require the same sorts of functions. A CPU & memory, audio & video and networking. Tie these together with xDSL or Cable and you've got the disruptive technology that will ultimately finish the PC in most homes. Now before you mod this flamebait, think about this for a moment. What is required from a disruptive technology? It does not need to be better, it does not even need to be as good. It needs to be simpler and cheaper. It attacks from the low end, eating into the lower margin markets which the incumbent does not bother defending. It is for this reason that WebTV is doomed, it's based on PC technology, it too big, too complex, and too expensive. Why should an *ordinary consumer* buy a $1000 PC or a $500 WebTV box when I can get a $200 console or STB that will do the key things. The PC is dead, long live the PC.
Thank you to my CTO who said "Work New Year's Eve or don't bother coming in the next day."
If my management took this attitude and said something akin to this to me I'd walk out and sue them for constructive dissmisal.
Speeding 'offences' in the UK are a joke, everybody knows it, some just refuse to accept it, these regulations are not about safety they are a back door taxation scheme, why do you think the previous government introduced the points system in the first place? So you don't get banned for speeding you get fined instead and the government gets more revenue.
Personally I can't see this ever happening, it's like banning smoking, it won't happen because the government would lose too much money.
I don't agree, this is also not an issue of unsolicited goods, firstly this guy appears to have ordered WebTV box and a WebTV box was delivered. To all intensive purposes this guy got what he ordered; that the box was a prototype is immaterial to him.
If Microsoft wanted the box back it becomes a civil dispute not a criminal one. It's completely overkill to send the Police. IMB It's borderline Police harassment, combined this with the fact he's apparently a Banker, his honesty and integrity need to be beyond reproach, I think he's got a pretty good case for defamation of character. OTOH, he bough Microsoft so he probably got what he deserved:)
However the Police are not supposed to be corporate lackeys, they are here to protect people from crime, not enforcing questionable civil disputes. IMHO the Guy should sue, probably both the NYPD and Microsoft, he's certainly got a stronger case than moron's who don't know coffee is hot.
I'm sure many/most here would agree that patents are unethical because they stifle innovation and protect established commercial interests. INHO a truly creative business does not need protection, it simply innovates it's self above the competition, it does not need to 'protect' it's inventions.
However I don't believe a boycott of Amazon is the best course to challenge the patent system in this instance, I believe boycotting Amazon would probably be counter productive. A boycott, if successful would only result in Amazon dropping the action, it would not break the patent.
It's in our interests to use the system to benefit openness as much as possible, this patent should be broken in court on 'obviousness' and 'prior-art' grounds. If you want to take positive action aid the company challenging the patent, through research into prior art.
A boycott of a patent holder should be saved for a patent that is on solid ground in law, but needs to be challenged to benefit all.
This system is quite primitive compared to what's possible, but I'm going to have to use this as an opportunity to plug our site about the service we offer.
:)
http://www.kitv.co.uk
If you live in Hull in the UK you can have it today but if you live in some backwater, you'll have to wait
Kingston Interactive TV is delivered as IP over ADSL, it includes Interactive & Digital TV, Real Video on Demand, High speed Internet Access and a Local Link. This tech is amazing.
I'd just like to add a few comments to my post after considering the responses to it. There have of course been exceptions, on both sides, but my prevalent experience is as described. That the majority contractors have such a high opinion of themselves is to be expected, it's probably a key requirement to be able step outside the presumed security of a permanent role. I don't hold this against contractors I simply accept it as a fact of life. IMNSHO it's this inherent self belief which gives them the tendency to over state their knowledge or experience. When you consider that the key cost in the life cycle of software is maintenance, the initial engineering is extremely important and ensuring the adherence to standards is critical. The short terms that contractors stay before moving means they lack knowledge of the software framework, these are a particular headaches which requires the close supervision. It is possible I've had an untypically bad experience because of rates, but I do feel that this just serves to emphasise a key issue of how the individual is motivated.
I'm not convinced that creation of lots of Baby Bills is the solution to the Microsoft monopoly. We would be left with a cartel of dominant players with a common interest rather than a one. This could even make the situation worse. One of the key barrier to new entrants to the OS market for desktops is the difficulty of supporting multiple OS's on a single PC. The fact that all versions of Windows actively work against the installation of a second OS is a key barrier to entry. The most effective method of opening any market is the removal of entry barriers. Therefore the DOJ should force Microsoft to include a boot loader which supported the loading of alternate Operating Systems. If the DOJ also forced a very tight deadline on this functionality, for example saying this must be present in the release of Win2000. Microsoft would be forced to licence existing technology from another company and therefore would find it much more difficult to subvert this requirement.
I'm salaried, so are my boys primarily because it's more professional. I agree that job security is not a key issue in either instance because of the skills shortage. In fact experienced technical staff can pick and choose, even the incompetent.
The reluctance of the staff in the original post to go hourly could be because of the stigma. I think you should view this as a positive thing. If you did choose to *force* them to got hourly you would lose a considerable amount of good will, they will become unhappy and productivity will suffer.
Those motivated by interesting/challenging work choose those roles, they don't mind working extra hours for free if the work is interesting, as it happens these roles tend to be in emerging technologies. I'm always chosen these roles and do good enough on the salary front to indulge my vices so I'm happy.
Those motivated by money choose to contract thinking about all those extra hours overtime they can rack up, they have no incentive to finish the job on time or within budget, in fact the incentive is exactly the opposite. As a general rule the only way to make them happy by throwing money at them, if the project/business can afford it, fine if not, your stuffed.
In my experience contractors tend to be those that can't hold a permanent job down, often big headed and narrow minded. They typically shoot off coding like they shoot off their mouths, claim all sorts of experience and knowledge which rarely pans out. They are unable or unwilling to follow company standards, having no incentive to do the job properly or future proof their output because they don't have to maintain it.
As a rule they have to be supervised so closely by permanent staff that I no longer tolerate them on my projects, I'm fortunate my current boss agrees partly for budget reasons but mainly because of his techie background.
As for those that will claim this is jealousy of the hourly rates paid to contractors, you're forgetting the fringe benefits for permanent staff. The most significant being share options, in my case after 6 months in my current position its already worth nearly a years salary. When it matures in three years it will probably be worth enough to retire, but I'll keep on working for the challenge and interest, how many contractors can honestly claim they would?
>Open Source isn't magic pixie dust, so why insist that it is essential for success, totemising the openness of source as essential for success?
Whilst Open Source is not *essential* for success, it makes success more likely, because Open Source is Darwinian in character.
It promotes 'survival of the fittest' within each environment, the user selects the best distribution, which uses the best modules from the best programmers. Open source in naturally adaptive to the environment with differing environments promoting different distributions. Low entry barriers, encourage competition which promotes fierce selection of the fittest,