Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Information Appliances, Linux and Computers 142

Posted by CmdrTaco from the linux-opportunity??? dept.
This editorial in Mac opinion discusses the way Microsoft's competitors may attack Microsoft: making computers irrelevant by replacing them with information appliances. This could lead to an increase in computer prices -- economies of scale no longer apply.>
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Information Appliances, Linux and Computers More

Information Appliances, Linux and Computers

Comments Filter:

  • You, too, huh? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Does your appliance have a neuron chip from echelon so that from the touch display you can monitor and control any of the products or systems made with Echelon's neuron chips have in them. There are nearly 4,000 companies making such products and systems, and they are all interoperable. Check out merloni.it Then click on some of the buttons. Check out Ariston appliances, one of the Merloni companies.

    One in every room.

  • Information appliance? No way! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This will not happen. This is the opposite of convergence - divergence. The idea is you will have a specialized computer to keep recipes, a specialized computer to make video or voice phone calls, a specialized computer for controlling your smart house, blah blah blah.

    It is far more likely that you will have a centralized computer with a bunch of specialized terminals strung up around the house. It is cheaper and easy to wire for, especially with 10Mb ethernet going through phone lines now.

    This was Diba's plan, who I worked for as a visiting engineer out in Silicon Valley. They were bought by sun. Although you won't likely be watching TV on your computer you won't have a computer for every specialized task either. It simply isn't practical or cheap from the consumers point of view. We'll get something in between.

  • Appliances, not going to happen soon (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How many users really "need" a full PC class computer? A large part of the people owning PC's today fall in the "want internet access, and some games" category. The more information appliances become available at low prices, the less reason these people will have to buy a full fledged "generic" computer.

    Sure, "normal" computers will still be needed. And lots of them. But not for everyone.

    This is just a case of the IT industry finally figuring out that a lot of people don't care if they can run program X on their box, they just want function Y, no matter what program deliver tbe features, and what the hardware specs are.

    My grandmother don't dare touching a computer. But she would dare to use the internet, if she got a phone with a touch screen, with a web browser intergrated with a phone application, so it was just an extension of an appliance she is already familiar with.

  • can't happen. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Because you have a phone anyway, so why not buy a phone with a built in touch screen and web browser, and video telephony, if it hardly costs any more? (It's coming, and it's Linux based, and it's the reason I'm anonymous ;)

    Or for that matter, if your VCR doubled as a settop box, so you could access a menu of TV programs pulled from the net, and just choose the programs you want to tape from a menu. Or if you just can't remember where you've seen an actor before, and just push a button to bring up a web browser, enter the name on a search page, and voila.

    Or you just tell your stereo to buy the newest MP3's from some cool artist, and burn it onto your brand new 18GB DVD that holds about a year of MP3's pr. plate.

    How many phones does the average household have? VCR's? Radios? Stereos?

    The point is that most appliances today need a CPU of some kind anyway, because of constantly expanded feature set. And because of the scale of economics, embedded CPU's aren't what they used to be: increasingly, they're just older versions of x86 CPU's etc.

    The appliace market is commoditized to the extent where many of these appliance WILL have enough power to handle webbrowsing or information gathering of some sort. And there ARE features that will make it interesting, and WHEN people have multiple points from where to access the net (either via a web browser, or for specialized applications, such as my stereo example), they're far less likely to need a "real" computer - remember: A lot of people don't have a real computer yet, and many of those that do, use it only for a very limited set of functions, and would be a lot less likely to buy one if one of the primary functions weren't needed, because they could browse from their phone, for instance.

  • Well, the two examples you give are different types of general-purpose computers. An Internet-access device will succeed if it can avoid being perceived as a "general-purpose computer."

    Example: PalmPilots also run fewer programs than Windows PCs. But they're growing legs and walking off store shelves anyhow. Of course, they're not sold as "general-purpose computers," they're sold as "personal digital assistants."

    Example: WebTV boxes also run fewer programs than Windows PCs. But the various companies that make them (Sony, Philips/Magnavox, etc.) have still sold quite a few of them. Of course, they're not called "general-purpose computers" either; they're called "home Internet terminals."

    If AOL/Netscape/Sun (the so-called "Alliance") were to create an Internet-access device, I can guarantee you that they won't call it a "computer" of any sort. If it happens to be upgradable (at additional cost, naturally) to the status of a general-purpose computer, then so much the better, but the base device won't be called a "computer."

    Some of the video game consoles of the Eighties were like that, offering add-on components to turn them into home computers. Of course, they weren't really successful...but, given the awesome power of the PlayStation 2, Sony might be getting some ideas along this line. If they can turn a PSX2 into a general-purpose computer cleanly and cheaply (for, maybe, $100 or so over and above the cost of the standard PSX2), they could attract a lot of attention very quickly. Sony engineers reading this, take note :-).

    But, again, the initial device wouldn't be called a "general-purpose computer," it'd be called a "video game console." And people wouldn't be buying it based on how well it performed as a computer, they'd buy it based on how well it performed as a game console. Similarly, if AOL/Netscape/Sun calls whatever box they may develop an "Internet access device," the public won't be comparing it to a Gateway or a Dell, they'll be comparing it to a WebTV. (Note to A/N/S: Find a good consumer electronics manufacturer to stick their nameplate on your box...that should help steer perceptions in the right direction.)

    Special-purpose devices will only be perceived as "crippled" if the manufacturer lets them be perceived that way.

    Eric
    --

  • Got this:

    [an error occurred while processing this directive]

    Of course, appliances run OS's as well. Who said Microsoft can't write MS Windows AP.


    --
  • Oh, come on... everyone knows Unix hackers don't shave... ;)
  • I agree with the original poster. The ability to upgrade and repurpose a complex tool outweighs the fact that it may not be quite as good as a dedicated instrument. I own a Swiss Army knife myself, and I haven't had much use for my screwdriver, scissors, or various other tools except in extreme situations (very small screws, cutting cardboard, etc.)

  • Well isn't that too bad, we hackers won't be able to buy our PCs at ridiculously low prices. We'll actually have to use our PCs for five years instead of trading up every eighteen months.

    First off, I don't think that the proliferation of inexpensive NCs or other information appliances, and the subsequent decrease in numbers of "real" computers, will raise their price that much. It's Moore's law, more than economies of scale, that have made PCs so cheap. If the market shrinks, yes, prices might go up a bit, but (for a few years at least) the research and investment that drove the prices down is already sunk, and it will to a large extent continue.

    Secondly, the market, and we as consumers, are pretty unforgiving. Under your scenario, no one could get away with trying to sell a Pentuim II PC for $5000. We would all remember back to when they cost $1500, and the manufacturers would know that we remember. Eventually, they'd concede, and they'd find a way to sell them for, say, $2500, and we'd agree to that price.

    And so what if prices go up? I wouldn't really mind paying twice as much for my "hacker" PC if I knew the extra cost was subsidising low-end information appliances that give one more grade-school kid or grandmother access to the Internet.

    You sound just like the mainframe jocks who felt threatened by the first PCs twenty years ago. Get off your high horse and realize that this next step, if it comes about, is just the continued democratization of technology. Those masses of people who are "too stupid" to keep up with future hold a lot more power than we do.
  • But you missed a bit of the point...

    Kiss apple goodbye.... and kiss Linux goodbye.

    Think about it... if people are only buying AOL machines or Wintell macines you can say goodbye to the internet as we know it. AOL will pull into its shell like before and Microsoft will Innovate the web right out from underneath us. There wont be much of an internet left for Mac users or independent linux users...

    not so funny is it...

    Still I dont see this happening... Im not to worried about AOL trying to take over the world... I think they might try this (would be a good move on their part) but I dont think it would be so sucessfull that it could fragment the online world.
  • The problem is that the decision is between a hard to use widget (one that you have to specialy configure to a given task and command perfectly to do that task) and a collection of appliances which allow you to "press a button" and wash the dishes, cook dinner, email all your friends, remind you of meetings, do your taxes.

    this is the difference... The _idea_ is to produce a bunch of extraordinarily simple apliances that do one thing realy well... the target market isnt people like you and me but rather people who dont currently own computers and, frankly, are afraid of them...

    Im not sure if this will work the way everyone seems to want it to work (yea... like my microsoft toaster is gonna talk to my apple brand bred box to make me a bagel :)
  • Happened to me too. Hit reload. I got it like 10 seconds later.
    It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.

  • Adding to Altus's comments, not only are general-purpose things usually much more complicated than single-purpose things, but they tend not to do the job as well.

    Why are knife and screwdriver makers still in business when there are Swiss army knives? How does Cisco stay alive when PCs running Linux or BSD can function as routers?

  • http://www.sun.com/jini/ [sun.com]

    Jini is Java-based technology for networking your appliances together. From their web site:

    Jini connection technology makes computers and devices able to quickly form impromptu systems unified by a network. Such a system is a federation of devices, including computers, that are simply connected. Within a federation, devices are instant on--no one needs to install them. The network is resilient--you simply disconnect devices when you don't need them.

    And since it's Java-based, it can already work with personal computers, and it doesn't need anything from Microsoft.

    --
    Timur Tabi
    Remove "nospam_" from email address

  • I know lot's of Mac users that love AOL. Why? Because like the Mac, the feel it's much easier and reliable than the real internet.
  • I went to a very technical, high-level Jini presentation awhile back and I have to say that while the idea surrounding it is totally wickedly cool, the security nighmare with it hasn't been addressed in the least bit. The example given was have somebody break into your car, attach his palm pilot and BINGO Jini accepts him in the net and the car is his.

    It's nowhere near ready for anything at this level yet and won't be for a long time.
  • To me this sounds like paranoia. The points are interesting enough, but to assume that the AOL / Netscape merger is going to force Apple into a tight corner is ludicrous - Jobs and Co. will do that on their own.

    Besides, doesn't anyone remember that the third party in this merger is Sun? Who's to say that Sun wont develop a consumer version of the Corona (a kickass $500 semi X-term) and push that as their appliance?

  • I've been hearing this for months now: The home PC is going to be replaced by an internet device by the phone, a TV/game system in the living room, and a word processing device in the study. Guess what: it ain't gonna happen. The computer revolutionized America, and then the world because of one quality: its versatility.

    Gee, didn't coal power revolutionize 19th century England too? By yor same logic, I suppose we'd be still burning coal to heat our homes today.

    :P - nuh


  • There has to be at least half a dozen comments in this thread saying that the Net PC already hasn't worked out yet, therefore the idea was bad. Just becuase we're not overrun with them now, doesn't mean that they've already failed.

    In fact, we can already see the signs of set-top internet boxes and network computers already. Of course, there's the tried and true WebTV, a perfect example of a set-top box, but there are others. Alcatel is currently about to ship (in the next couple of months) a phone w/ a color LCD screen for e-mail and web surfing, and I believe that it runs Java! They're not the only company doing this, but theirs looks the best so far.

    Hell, even iMac is a step in the NC direction, although it is obviously still a PC, you can't deny where Apple is going with its design.

    If anything, the idea for an internet box is still well and alive, and I think we'll simpy be seeing more of them as time passes.

  • Why the hell should we want to upgrade if the "information appliance" already does its job without a hitch?

    When was the last time, you got a new hard disk for your VCR? People rarely upgrade their TV's RAM. God forbid that I'll have to put a new processor into my NES.

    Upgrading is the most antiquated, un-userfriendly, legacy from the IBM PC architecture (sorry boys, it sucks). What makes "inforamtion appliances" interesting is that they (in theory) are meant to work. Just work. No hassling around with 30 different kinds of serial, COM, USB, parallel, SCSI, ADB, etc ports. You plug the IA (information appliance) into the electrical plug, then plug in your netwokring cable, and that's it! Hell, if Firewire becomes as big as I think it might, you'll only have to plug in ONE stinking cable!!

    Gee, I guess since the NC, IA, whatever you wanna call it hasn't exploded in popularity in the 2-3 years since its concept has been popularized, I suppose that means that it is already done for.

    Geez, get a clue.
  • Will happen. *Is* happening!!!

    The reason Info. appliances will overtake PCs, eventually, is that they are *easier* for the ignorant masses to use. Much can be said about a PC's power and flexibility, but not ease of use.... not for a first-time user. *Especially* not with MS "leading" the way :-)

    Nuff' said!

    Cheers,

    - Hawkeye
  • Thank you "anonymous coward" and I didn't make *any* claim as to *my* intelligence!

    A hostile reaction from you is not what I need or
    deserve. I was simply making a point that computers are not, nor ever have been as easy to
    use as "marketeers" would want you to believe...

    As far as the "you can't change the world" comment I don't know what to say, except that if *all* were like you, nothing would ever change for the
    better.

    One last thing!! If you expect me to take you
    seriously, why not grow some balls and post under
    your *own* name or 'net alias, at least!!!!

    Why do I need to change myself? My comment wasn't
    blasting any particular group, but there are a *lot* of computer neophytes out there... And I'm sorry to point this out to you, but there are definitely some truly ignorant "no-ops" out there!!! If you can't see it, you probably lean towards being one of them :-)

    - Hawkeye
  • Lesse... cpu, monitor, printer, monitor...
    Makes me think of the old canon notebook with an inkjet printer built in... :)

    Truthfully, I wouldn't buy a box that did copy/fax/scanner/answering machine, as it makes it much more expensive to upgrade, or replace when it breaks...

    Then again, I'm strange enough to have a 12 port thick ethernet repeater.
  • a freakin' iWhack. The original Mac's were supposed to be information appliances and the iMac is just that again. A computer in many ways has the potential to be an appliance. It can play CD's and DVD's, it can tune in the t.v. or radio and of course not only does it make an excellent typewriter it's a good game console as well. This of course ignores all the other possiblities :-)
    But what if you only have a limited space and limited needs? Hmmmm, that iMac begins to look pretty good and the first two versions were pretty expandable. Too bad they dumbed 'em down even further :-( Working at a reseller I can get an iMac for a good price and with those things getting faster and faster every day my older slower workstation sure could use a little less load that the iMac can handle. What's more, in my case I'll stick it in the diningroom / kitchen right where the phone line is. That way all info in and out of the house is centrally located on one dedicated machine and my wife can use her cooking/shopping software w/out having to walk across the house to her current pc. I'm sure we can find other jobs to push off onto it as
    well :-) like maybe some X-10 duties or something...

  • WebTV was supposed to make computers irrelevant for web browsing. Guess what. Can't easily upgrade, and you're locked in on your choices.

    The thin client was supposed to replace the computer (sorry Larry). Again. Can't upgrade easily and if it's down, you cannot access anything to do work locally.

    Now "information appliances" are going to replace the computer. Guess what. SAME SHIT DIFFERENT DAY!

    I apologize for the use of profanity. But the saying applies better than just about anything else in this case.


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!

  • Scary.

    My first reaction is denial; I could not live without a computer to hack around with. But, on the other hand, this is very true. I am a 17 year old student who spends more time on the phone line doing tech support to Joe's who don't know a CDrom from a ps/2 port.

    Anyways, I believe that in reality this is the most accurate pridiction you could make about the future. I'm sure glade I am a hacker an will most likely end up building these things with my knowledge in the future; atleast I have this to fall on.

    That, and these devices will be networked, according to all pridictions. I guess I will have to flex my tcp/ip knowledge also to make sure my coffee and toast are ready at the same point.
  • You probably have at least a monitor and printer, possibly an external modem.

    Would you buy one unit that had cpu, monitor, and printer all in one box? Even Apple's iMac doesn't go that far. Now add copy machine, scanner, phone answering machine...

    Wouldn't it be nice to have all those appliances connected by a Jini network?

    --
  • One bloated super do-it-all appliance is just what M$ is trying to push down the world's throat with W98, W2K, and Office. Notice how well Unix works in comparison.

    Now add the Unix pipe and you've got something interesting. Tell the breadmaker it's got X ingredients and it should make bread for 6pm; tell the coffeemaker to have coffee ready at the same time; tell the oven ditto, and ditto for the microwave. Well, not quite a pipeline, but you couldn't do that with one jumbo appliance.

    --
  • But it won't. Oh, there'll probably be a few dozen more failed attempts to do it (after the few dozen that already have failed or are stuggling), but the problem comes down to one thing -- people want the flexibility of full-powered computers.

    Think about it. The #1 argument you heard in, say, 1989 for buying a DOS PC over an Apple II was that the PC ran more programs. The #1 argument you hear in 1999 for buying a Windows PC over a Mac is that it runs more programs. And a limited-power device like the Netscape-Linux IA the column talks about will slam into the same wall -- it's less useful than a PC.

    Computers are programmed general-purpose information devices. A programmed limited-purpose iformation device will always be percieved as crippled.

  • But somebody might actually will try to implement it and some amount of these appliances will be sold and bought. And in the end will prove themselves to be totally useless. Untill few of these things will end up in the hands of Linux geeks who will hook them up to their boxes and after some tweaking and hacking will make them to do something really cool and completely unrelated to the intended use. I am sure abut you guys.

    On rellated note. I'm not surprized to hear this from AppleHeads. For a long time this was their main drive to turn computer into appliance (note pad, sketch pad ... you name it).

    I have a better idea for appliance. Hou about box with alpha chpip for under $1000?

    Cheers
  • Bah. You don't know what toasters is.
    toasters@mathworks.com. does. Net Apps seem to be about spending a lot of money, fretting over the fruits of that cash (cache?), and endlessly, well, fucking with the parameters for this box that was advertised as simplified storage management*. *I may be poisoned, but I have yet to see a network-beast (aside from Cisco) that actually was what it was advertised to be. Netapp, etc. are not there yet (autonegotiating on standard hubs would be a start). My Filer 720 still spews NFS errors whenever I ask it to copy more than a few K. I suspect that's because I can't make it behave like the other Solaris box accessing it; which does so over a crossover cable. Go figure. I guess my next storage device is a Sun server with RAID. At least that works. Wait, it is cheaper, too. I can hope, tho. Some day, this netapp box will cease to be a lame ass bottleneck. I just hope I'm not dead then. Oh, yeah - slashdot nanotech will be there by then. Sorry. -j
  • Industry needs to sell something!
    All those big money made at NASDAQ needs to be put in something investors (Idiots in suit) feels like the cutting edge of tech. So anything that combines this words would do it fine in pushing company XXX stock's up:

    -Internet
    -Computer
    -Web
    -Miniature
    -Network
    -$399,99

    So now, invent your prefered appliance and patent it, then go to some tech company and became rich. As simple as that...
  • Yeah, I couldn't agree more. But look at it this way:

    Why buy an OS and a bunch of expensive add-ons if you have a free OS and a bunch of free utilities that do the same thing? Because that other OS, the one that costs money, has a huge marketing department and name recognition behind it.

    Sure, my information appliances manage to burn bread, but that will be fixed in the next release, no not service pack, a costly upgrade. Who cares if you can add your oven to the fridge-and-dishwasher network by rolling your own code or downloading someone elses? We have a support staff behind our $400 oven-add-on, and for only $100/hour we'll get you up and running.

    For the average consumer, marketing sells. I thought M$ taught us this? Luckily Linux is getting some press, and people are realizing what it means to have a community working on an open project and contributing their time to a worthy cause, that of the common good. Isn't that what America is supposed to be about?
  • Forget the article's Mac bias and look at the picture from another angle.

    I would not buy a browser machine(or a WebTV). But I would certanly take a computer for free with Linux on it. Such a configuration would be an appliance for the less technical user, but it would still be a complete computer.

    On the other hand, the "incomplete machine" argument makes less and less sense as the hardware prices go down. Twenty years ago, the idea of a "text processing" machine failed because it would be too expensive for the end user. I am not sure if this idea wouldn't sell a lot today.

    And it makes a lot of sense to AOL. They not only hurt Microsoft, they also lock their audience in "their" Internet.
  • I think you're definitelly right. My PDA travels with me and has become indispensable. I'd like it to talk to my cellphone, but not be integral with it - well, maybe that.

    But we're definitely seeing the trend from mainframe to PC continuing from PC to invisible infrastructure.

    Consider this: A thin Java console lives in an embedded system built into your kitchen counter, perhaps on the microwave console or the fridge door. It maintains the shopping lists and contents of your cupboards. It makes a list at the end of the week, and as you walk out the door, it sends it to your PDA.

    As you shop and put things into your cart, the PDA reads the isle and item you are near (little electronic price tags on shelves - passively powered by an emitter in your cart) and cross-references your calendar to check for dinner dates, special occasions, and the dietary preferences and allergies of the people involved. It makes suggestions and issues warnings. "Your father is coming for his birthday dinner monday - likes porkchops, but is allergic to scallops".

    When you check out, the payment is made electronically of course. Maybe we don't even need a clerk - only a bagger. And here's my favorite part... Those little 'invasion of privacy' discount cards that Stop&Shop has are actually useful. What you buy, and the rate at which you consume it is in your system (currently in PDA). You know what you're low on, and what you bought comes off the shopping list as you restock.

    That's for shopping. At home, there's more transparent logic.

    If you have a single can of cranberry sauce, in April, it doesn't hassle you for more. If it's late November, it'll remind you to get more. If you have a Jewish friend who is coming over, the system will pull a recipe, based on the contents of your fridge and cupboard, for something Kosher. Or you have a vegeratian friend. This thing should know your friends, your habits, their habits... It should be global, not personal or domestic.

    When the dinner date is made (to extend the context) the backchannel of the conversation exchanges schedules and dining preference. As you become more familiar with someone, you release more and more pertinent information. If you're close friends, you share vacation schedules, cultural and entertainment habits, and medical histories, just in case.

    Let's go a little further: Your car fails to start in the morning. An email is automatically sent to your mechanic and an appointment is made in cross ref to their shop schedule. An email is dispatched to work informing them when you'll be in and why you're late (authenticated so they know you're not cutting out to see Phantom Menace) and you either go back to bed for a few hours, or by the time you walk back in from the garage, your PC is online and logged into work. You're telecommuting today.

    Wanna go on a trip? Hmm, 3rd week in August looks good. You make the personal arrangement with the spouse and inform the PC. Guess what? By lunch time, a flight, hotel and itinerary are all booked, according to your defined specs for cost, convenience and personal quirks.. And you know what? Since you've got an allergy to papaya, that's not on the menu. And it's only April.

    It's a nice dream. But it's not unrealistic. ATMs are pretty ubiquitous at this point, and computer technology is disappearing fast into the infrastructure. What we're looking at is a future of distributed systems and intelligent agents that will facilitate our lives by taking the mundane details off of our minds. The same way that the car and highway made travel plans easier to make. The same way that the telephone reduced interpersonal communication from the artform and drudgery of ink to a completely thoughtless act.

    Alfred North Whitehead said that:
    It is a profundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like calvary charges in a battle -- they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments.
  • The problem with these things is that they're not all they're cracked up to be. Take the recent trend in combining office peripherals for example.

    You get a printer/scanner/fax/copier and you think you're getting a great deal. But, you're not really getting the functionality you want. The lesser models require that they be connected to a running computer to send and receive a fax, many need to go thru the PC to send a fax or make a copy, because these features depend on the scanner, for which the driver is on the PC.

    This is like requiring the oven appliance to heat up before making toast.

    And if a component dies, guess what? You're S.O.L. until it gets shipped back to you, post repair. (I can't wait 4 to 6 weeks to print something...) Bad mojo.

    Now, software is different, but I still have my doubts about the PC. Personally, I think that the storage vs memory vs display vs multimedia are all separate components - that happen to be in a single box. I can upgrade, replace and tweak any and all of them.

    The era of the PC as a multipurpose device came (and went) with things like the Mac (who sanctioned the original article for this thread) and 'closed' PCs like Packard Bell...
    These companies cater to people whose head hurts from the complexity of a separate case and monitor.

    Me, I'll keep my AGP, external drives, hot-swap PC cards (why didn't these even make it on the desktop?) and fsck the case.
  • Nuff said I think.
    The NC was an instance of a concept. Now we wait for somoene to make one that actually works. :)
    Maybe 3Com?
  • Now, I can understand why I might want that functionality. But...why should I be paying $100 for functionality I don't use?

    There's your example for the "appliances". No assumption that you have other appliances to handle otherfunctions for you.

    You wont pay it but others will. Furthermore the single purpose-built multi-function appliance will always have a buyer becasue of ease of use.

    If Sony were to put Linux+PPP+Netscape on a PSX cd and give it to everyone with their Playstation 2 for free along with 30 days of Sony Online, How is that not attractive to your average PC user. Sure, there's no MS Office (Who really uses it at home anyway?) but there's plenty of Internet and 3d games, and the machine has a life span of a few years rather than a few months. What you want and what people can sell do not always collide.
  • I want to be the first to run Linux on a network of 255 toasters!
  • mmm, for the same reason we don't all live and commute in an RV? For the same reason that people touring the contry in RVs sometimes tow cars with them. For the same reason that more people are watching DVDs on DVD players hooked to televisions than are watching them on their computers. For the same reason Zenith didn't take the world by storm with their combo TV/Speaker phone. For the same reason we are using a bunch of personal computers rather than a single mainframe.

    There are a lot of good reasons but I think the biggest one is Concurrancy. This allows one person to do multiple things at once or multiple people to do many different things. It means that I can enter information into my palm pilot at the same time I am talking on my Cell phone. Having both functions in a single device is a compromise. It means that I can play video games while my wife shops for our next vaction on travelocity while keeping an eye on the TV for futurama to get back from commercial.

    Compactness is another issue. Even if being able to use a PalmIII and a cellphone at the same time weren't an issue, having the two integrated means than when I just have a cellphone I still have something as big as a palmIII because it has to be big enough for the screen.

    Even so, given the right set of compromises, I think we will see multifunction appliances such as a DVD-player/cable-box/Internet access/video game/video recorder. A home could probably have two or three of these hooked up to HDTV sets and it would provide for the entire households information and entertainment needs at a reasonable level of concurrancy.
  • Sorry buddy, I know more than one Mac user with AOL accounts. You can pat yourself on the back all your want, doesn't mean that you are right.
  • People are raving about the PalmPilot, a very effective, efficient, easy to use pda, an information management device.

    You you could make something, a stupid fast reliable cheap email client, I'm sure that would take off too, expecially since it is just text. Why would someone use that? It's convenient to store and send messages, especially at a reasonable cost. If it's slightly more expensive, and has the capability to do Java and web browsing, I'm sure many would be satisfied with it, and not want a whole PC.

    On the other extreme, you can have a game/entertainment device, like a game console... Think the PSX2, with DVD, CD, PSX1, PSX2 support.

    Why would someone want something as clunky, difficult, and ornery as a PC?

    On the other hand, it's very powerful, flexible, and programmable, though these features cause it to be clunky sometimes, difficult, and hard to use.

    AS
  • Why focus on the 'incomplete' part instead of perhaps a more 'focused' machine?

    Is a PalmPilot not an incomplete computer?

    Why is it so popular then?

    So apply some of the same principles that drive the 'Pilot:
    Efficiency, effectiveness, ease of use.

    Apply these concepts to other devices...

    A home entertainment device(gasp!) like the PSX2, which will handle DVDs(movies too, I hope), CD music, PSX1 games, and light computation situations with a USB mouse and keyboard.

    It's just so much simpler to deal with a console today than with the standard PC; buy a game, plug it in, turn it on, and play.

    With a PC, config files need to be messed with, optimizations for different hardware might be necessary, new drivers and updated software may be required...

    Imagine a machine similar in concept to a PSX2 or other console but applied to the internet, or to communications, or to multiplayer/single player gaming... Take the basic components of the PC, and distill it into each device such that there is nothing more complicated that turning it on, waiting a few seconds for bootup, and then using it! There should never be re-configuration for each device, ever, other than perhaps user taste.

    AS
  • I'm pretty convinced it will happen, though not quite in the way you phrased it.

    The multifunction device isn't specific *enough*, though it can probably function fine.

    Why buy a PalmPilot when you can lug around a notebook PC or Mac? The PalmPilot is an example of a targeted device, relatively inexpensive, *efficient*, effective, and simple. For the same reason, why do people buy consoles to play games when they could have a PC? You don't deal with the hassles(which are also freedoms) of a multi-function device in a targeted machine.

    Perhaps another example; the upcoming PSX2 is a multi-function device, with DVD, PSX1 game, PSX2 game, and CD music device. However, it is also a very specific targeted machine; entertainment. Unlike getting a PC, with DVD decoder, 3d graphics accelerator, 3d sound acceleration, USB joysticks and gamepads, copious amounts of memory and disc space, you get a compact effective efficient device for about half to a third of the cost.

    It can't do nearly as much, but it chooses to do a specific subset well. It may also be able to do web browsing and a few other minor things, because it can, but it's value is efficiency. Plug it in, turn it on, pop in CD/DVD, and play.

    No need for autoexecs, new drivers, new bios updates, new perhipherals devices...

    Likewise, if someone just wants to listen to mp3s, browse the web, write email, ICQ, IRC, perhaps internet voice phone, and internet video phone, a 300$ device to hook up to a TV, or a reasonable 15" monitor seems very apt. Why bother with the muscle (and flexibiltiy/headache) of a more powerful machine?

    You may not, but the average user who doesn't do *more* would appreciate the simplicity and effectiveness of such a targeted solution.

    Likewise, a gaming PC, to compete perhaps with the PSX2 or its ilk, could also evolve. Nice large 17" monitor, AGP4x video card with dedicated floating point on board geometry processor and multiple rendering pipelines, a good 3d sound card, perhaps ethernet for networking, a minimal WinOS or LinOS or MacOS, with some processor equivalent to a Celeron 300, would do well. Games would not rely on the CPU for performance, but on the 3d sound system to do the sound processing and the 3d graphics system for the drawing and transforms and floating point. The CPU would just be there for AI and minor contention stuff, physics, etc.

    You could probably build the above system for about 400$, comparable to the PSX2, for a bit more flexibility. Notice the lack of a hard drive? Why bother? Perhaps a cheap minimal EIDE 1 gig, or whatever the min standard would be...

    The games would be self contained on CDs or something, and the memory would not be burdened by an overbloated OS...

    AS
  • What is the PalmPilot, if not an information management 'appliance'?

    Would you argue that these this niche would be better served with notebook PCs, and that everyone who bought one was scammed or something?

    Or even console gaming systems? Would you argue they aren't entertainment 'appliances' that would be better replaced with a full PC and 3d graphics and sound, with associated headache?

    What about Sony's planned PSX2; on paper, it seems like an entertainment 'appliance', with DVD movie support(hopefully), PSX2 game support, PSX1 game support, CD music support, and additional functionality availble through USB and FireWire ports. It may have the option of email and web browsing, with the addition of a keyboard, mouse, and a bootable CD of, say, Linux...

    What is an HP programmable scientific calculator if not a calculation and scientific 'appliance'? It's a bastard of a computer, but has enough power and functionality to play small games, do some serious calculation, graphing, etc. It's an example of a specific function that a full computer can easily do, boiled down to a handheld, instant on, instant use device.

    Just because the PC is popular/powerful/programmable doesn't make it the best solution for anything/everything. It can do anything/everything... but not necessarily conveniently, effectively, or effeciently.


    AS
  • There seems to be two conflicting trends I can't quite reconciliate, yet.

    The thought that PCs might get supplanted by simpler devices...

    My thoughts on this tend towards some analogies; PalmPilots as simple devices that relieve some of the need for a notebook, portable, or handheld PC, for note taking, PIM, scheduling, etc.

    Or a handheld programmable calculator, like an HP, replacing a notebook etc for computational purposes.

    Each one is a dedicated device; one a dedicated information management device, the other a dedicated calculation machine. Each is fairly programmable and generic, but still simple and effective.

    Another example is a console system as a dedicated gaming machine, like SNESes, Genesi, and PSXs of old.

    The multifunction route, another angle that is popping up, seems to say that the PC is too complicated, and that a simpler machine, but similar to the HP calc or PalmPilot in being a computational device would succeed. The PSX2 is an example I think fits the bill perfectly.

    A dedicated entertainment device; CDs, DVDs, games, and perhaps even the odd email or web browsing experience, with a USB keyboard, mouse, and modem.

    Or a dedicated internet device would work too, with hardware accelerated Java, a browser, some telnet functionality, email, perhaps mp3 support and speakers for streaming music or listening to music locally, etc.

    Why would a household who does not take advantage of the programmability of a PC want the full power, cost, maintanence, and hassle of said programmability?

    AS
  • PalmPilots instead of notebooks is the biggest example of a dedicated purpose device supplanting the general purpose PC.

    Or game consoles instead of PCs for games... It's been happening for years, and if Sony's PSX2 is as cool as it looks on paper, perhaps even more of a shift towards a dedicated entertainment device over a general purpose (flexible yet full of headaches) PC.

    It's just a prediction that simpler easier to use devices will replace PCs for a bunch of functionality in which new users don't want/need the hassle/freedom/flexibility of a PC.

    Why use a handheld calculator even when you could use a notebook PC with Excel?

    Why use a wristwatch with time/date functionality when you could lug around a handheld calculator, or even a notebook PC?

    Why use a remote control for your TV/VCR when you could reprogram/rewire your HP scientific calculator to do so?

    Perhaps my examples are extreme, but they're so obvious that I think most people miss the fact that it does in fact happen.

    AS
  • Sure...
    It's been said before, and nothing came out of it. PC's are getting cheaper and more popular. The only thing that can hamper MS's hold on them is their reluctance to lower the price of Windows.
  • If a prediction is going to happen for sure, that's already a fact. Most predictions are not going to happen anyway. So as this one.

    But as least we know, it seldom happens that nearly the everybody wants the exact same stuff. So even there're different information appliances, some of us may still want personal computers to do the jobs. Even sardines come in different brand names. In that era, no single manufacturer earns huge economic profits. That's a good thing.

    In other words, as long as a company that can identify certain customers' wants, they can survive. This editorial writer just doesn't feel good when Apple's customers are not large enough to dominate the part they are good at, and this writer is scared that Apple will again leave the path of satifying the customers' needs. As long as Apple moves in pace of the market, that would be fine. And it seems that Apple is not doing too bad now.
  • Does this just scare the heck out of anyone else? Part of the slashdot article -- I think it was erased, not sure -- was that the adoption of network appliances by the masses would lead to a great deal fewer PC class machines bought. This would lead to the price for PCs going way up, and the advancement in their technology going way down. A frightening prospect for everyone reading this, I hope.

    Doesn't anyone else remember what it was like in 1986, with VIC-20s available for $99, but to get any real computer power one had to pay upwards of $5000. A horrible time for anyone who loved power and didn't have the cashflow to afford it.

    Compare that to the situation we're in today. A fairly awesome computer can be had for $1500, and a respectable one for $1000. This is nice, this is what makes it so someone like me (student, and no rich folks either) can afford the power needed by compilers and the power needed by unices (and the power needed by Quake, but I probably shouldn't mention that :-).

    If we had things the dangerous network appliance way, there would be whole generations of people who could be power users and discover the world but can only afford brain-damaged $200 NA's because real computers are $5000 again. There would also be whole generations of people who never new any of the power of creation -- from the little stuff like a HTML doc or a Visual Basic program to the big stuff like installing Debian or compiling the 10k line C program they've been working on. This would be a horrible future for anyone. The internet would become effectively as read-only as television, and likely just as vacuous.

    So the way I see it, we as the power users have a duty to stop the spread of NA's as fast and soon as we can. They must appear ugly and innefectual and a bad idea, and they must dissapear into the past of computing fads faster than the touch screen. We need to keep Moore's law going as hard and fast as it possibly can, and advance the future *despite* of people too stupid to keep up with it.
  • >Well isn't that too bad, we hackers won't be able
    >to buy our PCs at ridiculously low prices. We'll
    >actually have to use our PCs for five years
    >instead of trading up every eighteen months.

    This is way less OK than you seem to think it is. First of all, fewer people outgrowing their PCs means fewer used PCs in the marketplace, and therefore used PCs go way up in price too. That means poor power users (read: myself) will have a harder time of getting any power. This is bad for both me and the two million or so other students and assd other poor folk just like myself. Once again, remember the eighties, where a power user HAD TO BE either rich or in a university to even be power users. Otherwise they were wannabes with super-keen C-64s. I was poor, so I was a wannabe. I don't want to see this come back, even if I do get rich with my CS degree :-)

    >If the market shrinks, yes, prices might go up a
    >bit, but (for a few years at least) the research
    >and investment that drove the prices down is
    >already sunk, and it will to a large extent
    >continue.

    Key words: for a few years at least. After that, after the market at large has forgotten that cheap power once existed, and their brains have been destroyed by the non-interactivity of NCs, then the gouging will begin. Two things will happen: PCs will go up a great deal in price, and their respective price/power ratio will go into the toilet. There's no way around it, if there are only, say, one million power users in the US willing to pay for studly machinery, said machinery will be darned expensive and much less research will go into it. Not to mention that the manufacturers will start to just make crap, because there's not enough market for there to be competition.

    >I wouldn't really mind paying twice as much for
    >my "hacker" PC if I knew the extra cost was
    >subsidising low-end information appliances that
    >give one more grade-school kid or grandmother
    >access to the Internet.

    That means that you're more than likely rich. More power to you, I'm all about capitalism, but don't let it cloud your judgement on the issue at hand. Grandmothers have access to libraries, which can buy real, high tech PCs. They also have the cashflow from retirement benifits, in many cases, to buy themselves a PC if they really want to. Those kids that you mention, what would you rather they be able to do: use their NCs from home, comprehending but never creating; or use real PCs at school, being able to do anything and everything available in the infosphere from them?

    I know if I were still in school, I would take the latter any time. But then, I would know what I was missing. If we let NCs proliferate, than nobody will know that all of that pretty WWW that they see on their AOL machines had to be crafted, had to be built and loved by someone. Those people will all just see it like TV, pretty pictures to watch interspersed with the occasional ads. What a waste of that which made so many people better thinkers in the mid to late 1990s.

    >Get off your high horse and realize that this
    >next step, if it comes about, is just the
    >continued democratization of technology.

    Wrong. Dead wrong. MY way is about the democratization of technology, the NC way is about the democratization of crap.

    If we continue down the path of power on the desktops of the people, than eventually we will have really slick, nice computers (slicker than the ones we have now) available for $500 or less. This won't just be non-interactive "appliances" in the hands of the people, this will be true creative power, and it will be good. If we let Moore's law continue at the speed it is at now, just immagine what will be available to THE COMMON PEOPLE (read: not just us hackers) in the year 2005. There will be speeds on everyone's desk almost as fast as mainframes are today. That is true democritization of technology, giving everyone access to raw, unadulterated, shocking power.

    Of course if NCs take over tomorrow, nobody will care that they could have had power in five years for the same price. That's the way people are, if they're not educated about the possibilities, then 90% of them will stick with what they have and what they know. In 2005 we could see the same pretty translucent blue NC on the desk of everybody in the world, and still have to know that if they had waited just a little bit longer, just a matter of four years or so, they could have been almost infinitely better off, for the same price.

    Could you live with yourself and your proselyzation (sp?) of NC technology? If so, how?
  • ... is that there's no reason this couldn't technically work, and no reason MS wouldn't or couldn't do this.

    Scary joke.

    --Corey
  • Yeah, well, I'm gonna run FreeBSD on my shaver... maybe play some pong while I shave? :)
    ---
    Tim Wilde
    Sysadmin, Dynamic DNS Network Services
  • Consider how many americans own Toyota Camrys (easily considered an appliance) versus how many own Ford Mustangs (a fast car with a powerful engine).

    The Ford Mustang is probably not a good example. A lot of non car people own them just for the name. The people that bought the shitty 80's 4 cylinder ones come to mind. Most people that buy Mustangs now buy the V-6 version than the V-8. My 1983 Toyota Supra is faster than it even!

    The lesson: buy foreign cars.

    Ok, I'm done ranting now.

  • The point in the argument you seem to miss here is that WWIII may not increase the intelligence of toasters so much as it decreases the intelligence of personal computers. After a personal computer has been dumbed down so much that it functions merely as an Internet client (and comes so cheaply as to be disposable), it becomes an Internet appliance. And one Internet appliance per Joe Average household might be all they need.

  • "D-Fly" says:

    In the process, say goodbye to Apple with their proprietary OS. People will either buy a Wintel if they want to blow a lot of money, or take a free AOLbox if they are cheapos.

    Which is all quite interesting, except that Apple doesn't sell cheap computers. Yeah, they have their iMac, but people buying $999 iMacs aren't buying them because they're cheap -- there are too many $499 Wintel machines for that to be a consideration. No, people buying Macs are buying them because they want to have a Mac, for whatever reason, and they're willing to pay more for it. Getting rid of the low-end of the market, if it happens, hurts Microsoft a lot more than Apple.

  • You're awfully free with that "you all" notion. Your point would probably be more well received if it were better aimed.
  • Yeah, Macs are the only servers that can be slashdotted. No other servers fail under catastrophically heavy loads.

    It's a UNIX server anyway.
  • IMHO, I don't see the "apppliance" to really be the future of personal computing.
    [snip]
    ...people will always need powerful machines requiring powerful operating systems, with powerful software.

    I think the key here is personal computing. Remember the article gave the example of the Ford Pinto? Consider how many americans own Toyota Camrys (easily considered an appliance) versus how many own Ford Mustangs (a fast car with a powerful engine).

    Yes, people will always need multipurpose, powerful workstations, but most of those people will be us, the enthusiast Mustang owners, the hackers who appreciate and need to use such machines.

    OTOH, maybe you're right...look at the F-150: a powerful, multipurpose machine, and the bestselling motor vehicle in america. Hard to say, I suppose, after all.
  • Scary thought, but no need to freak out.

    I would think that new providers that provide for the more advanced people would pop up. That gives you access to a compiler for example.

    Power users wil still get their power. One way or the other.

    As for newbies. They'll still be recruited, maybe more by other hackers than my themselfes.
  • you mean like a palmpilot?
  • diba is always mentioned in this context, can you give some more info or a url please?
  • at risk of being a sun commercial, the network IS the os...

    let's see, we have free web-based email, calendar, contact management, games, maps, auctions, software downloads, email lists, fax, file storage, photo services, translation software, messaging, chat.....

    sounds like the network computer just MIGHT work to me.
  • also people could hack into your personal sanitary unity and flush your toilet whilst you are in the shower. and...h8x0r d00ds could set your alarm clock back two hours.
  • I remember a when OSX server came out someone wanted to know when there was a site running on MacOSXserver. Well http://www.publicsource.apple.com is on OSX server, so see if it holds up any better than FreeBSD.

    Yo!
  • Trying 209.197.84.110...
    Connected to macopinion.com.
    Escape character is '^]'.

    FreeBSD (noldo.pair.com) (ttyp4)

    login:
  • I keep a 486 with an open telnet session in the john. :)
  • Yeah, this was one of several groundbreaking April 1st announcements that were missed by Slashdot. *snicker*

  • > I am Swiss, and ... :,( I could not dodge round the army (hey! ... private
    soldier). I am punctually amused to view how much people can't resist such a play-thing ... The model that I
    have received in the army (the simplest! ... God thanks), the one that weighs less than one kilo and that one
    can still use with one hand, was ... ehm ... "good" to unscrew rifle butts, to disassemble rifle breechs and to
    spread emergency-rations of *pate'* on bread slices. (To cut bread one already needed to take some care for
    not chopping his fingers too.)
    Swiss chocolate: this is something! ... Swiss chocolate can't be beaten so easily.
  • Agreed. Plus: "All-gone!" ... in case you have some hard/soft-ware quirks.

  • The appliance concept does make much more sense for business/home-office tasks.

    These are single-purpose boxes, which make good appliances. General-purpose information appliances don't do very well. Eventually, they can't be general-purpose, because their hardware can't handle future general-purpose tasks very well.

    We're starting to see business appliances which act as webservers, file servers, routers, gateways, etc. Single-purpose devices which can be hung off a network as needed. Sure, they're more expensive than using a multi-purpose Linux PC, but they're more convenient.

  • They're not running a MacOS...FreeBSD and Apache 1.3.3. Would appear to have something of a clue.
  • Ok, so say we do have programmable toasters and bread knives and refridgerators and so on and so forth?

    How long will it be before we're incapable of doing any simple task on our own? Sure, you can use a bread machine to make bread, but what if for some reason, your bread machine crashes?

    On the note of the idea of a programmable toaster.. do you think you could program it to hop into the tub with your spouse if you wanted to bump him/her off??
  • that just want to e-mail their grandchildren? Rather than get a full blown computer, an internet box that would just connect to the net, surf, and e-mail would be great.

    And it would have to be better than WebTV.
  • The idea was that people at home would be happy with reduced functionality if it was cheap - they didn't need or want an "office PC" at home.

    I guess people have more diverse uses for computers than many marketing weenies believe.

    I might buy a dedicated "instant on" web surfing device *as well as* a full blown PC, though! :)
  • Intel is already selling appliances. They are
    black boxes containing Intel chips and memory
    and an unlisted operating system (could it be
    Linux?). Following are the prices from CDW:

    1. eMail Station, $677.42. LAN and Internet
    e-mail domain server for small business.
    No monitor, no keyboard -- log in from any
    browser to configure.

    2. ISDN router, $398.64. Shared Internet access
    for a small business from one ISDN line.

    This is not an ad for Intel, but it shows how
    anyone can build black boxes with a preconfigured
    version of Linux set up for a few simple tasks.
  • I've been hearing this for months now: The home PC is going to be replaced by an internet device by the phone, a TV/game system in the living room, and a word processing device in the study. Guess what: it ain't gonna happen. The computer revolutionized America, and then the world because of one quality: its versatility. Someone attempting to build a business by replacing a single, does-it-all machine with a bunch of smaller, less cost-effective devices will find themselves looking down the barrel of bankruptcy in a hurry. The fact that PC's are quickly catching up to home game devices, which used to be a considerably cheaper entertainment option, and the fact that dedicated word processors are currently selling about as well as kerosene heaters in the Sahara are testament to the highly marketable versatility of the PC.
  • Forget biochips. I want to see nanocomputers! Or even femtocomputers. Can you imagine a CPU with registers that use entangled subatomic particles, whose states can be changed instantaneously? It'd have *almost* infinite speed. That would rule.

  • Embedded Systems will rule the world (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    At SCO Forum in 1997, Douglas Adams (of Hitchhiker's Guide fame) gave an interesting talk on the identity of the desktop PC. His conclusion: It's a "modeling device" -- something that can very easily be transformed (via programming) into just about anything you could want. It's a television; a typewriter; an arcade game; etc. But in each of those cases, having the "real thing" is generally an advantage. (Probably won't be cheaper, and it's harder to upgrade. On the other hand, you don't have to muck around with IRQ's and kernels and passwords -- things that are prohibitively complex for the average Joe -- just to type a letter to your grandmother.) Douglas added that it's only when you stop noticing technology that it becomes mainstream and useful. As an example, think about the ubiquitous microwave oven or VCR. Do we ever stop to think about the computer that's running them? How about the computer that's so cleverly managing the fuel injectors in our cars? Furthermore, when was the last time one of these computers crashed or got a virus?

    This talk made a big impression on me, and it's one of the reasons I now specialize in embedded systems. Embedded processors don't have to be specially designed for a particular application, and many come with all sorts of standard peripherals on the same chip as the CPU. This means that they can be mass produced and plopped into all sorts of devices with a minimum of effort. Think back to the industrial revolution and what the assembly line did for consumer goods... Now imagine the same sort of revolution happening right now for CPU-enhanced consumer electronics.

    Therefore, my first prediction is that the embedded market will continue to explode even faster than the desktop PC market. Think about it: The average household in the USA has 1 desktop computer. The average household has dozens (if not hundreds) of applications for embedded processors, and that number will continue to increase. (The average new car today has between 10 and 50 microprocessors hiding in it.) I predict that a lot of tasks for which we use PC's today (and for which MS wants us to continue to use PC's) will be offloaded into embedded systems over the next few years -- if only to make them more accessible to those who are not among the technical elite. Which is easier to play games on: a PC or a Nintendo 64?

    But what about the WWW browsers, spreadsheets, and desktop publishing apps? In other words, what about the apps that are harder to turn into convenient consumer electronic devices?

    Prediction #2: these will be taken over by public service companies...companies that will probably evolve from present-day ISPs. Put Linux in non-volatile RAM in a "network computer" -- something with an X server, a web browser, and a small amount of local storage. Connect this via a high-speed link to your ISP. The ISP has a mainframe (or a network of load-balancing rack-mounted machines) doing application service to the at-home boxes. Software upgrades, backups, etc. are done transparently, and average Joe who doesn't known a PCI bus from a PID doesn't have to worry about them.

    In conclusion: The desktop PC is useful to the technically-savvy among us, but is scary as all heck to the remaining 95%. The only reason it is so prevelant is that MS has been pushing it at everyone. Ten years from now, it will have vanished, replaced by inexpensive network computers and embedded devices; viruses and OS crashes will become amusing anachronisms. Linux/UNIX will still be around for the developers and for those of us who like to tinker. The network computer market is up for grabs, though. If the AOL/Netscape/Sun conglomerate play their cards right, they have all the tools to win it from MS, and MS's glory days will fade into the history books.

    Just my 2 cents. :-)
  • Each appliance will be built with the assumption that you don't have any of the other appliances around. Here's an example:

    I've been in the market for a 27" TV for about two months. I really want to get a Sony that has S-Video. However, the lowest-cost one that fits that is $499. Now what do I get for $499?:
    Super surround sound (already handled by receiver)
    smart sound (already in receiver)
    dual tuner picture in picture (have cable box)
    Super menu functions (in VCR/cable box)

    Now, I can understand why I might want that functionality. But...why should I be paying $100 for functionality I don't use?

    There's your example for the "appliances". No assumption that you have other appliances to handle other functions for you.

    Now take a look at a TV that is just a TV. No audio out, no extra idiot functionality, no other crap in it. But it does the job well. But you need to have a VCR to change channels, and a receiver to handle the audio. Each item in the entertainment center is specialized to do one thing (audio/video/CPU/storage), and do it well.

    There's an example of the current state of PC affairs. I'd rather have a plain 'ol TV that just had a good picture.

  • look at this InfoWorld article [infoworld.com]. Microsoft is working with Intel to create a Windows dependant motherboard.
  • Think Netwinder/Qube, folks. If AOL or anyone else decides to use Linux to compete head-to-head with Windows boxen for Internet appliances, there's no sense using Wintel hardware. After all, you're talking *millions* of boxes. Economies of scale and standardization apply.

    Use a StrongARM, or some other dirt-cheap RISC CPU. Add a 15" monitor, one of the new IBM miniature disk drives, and an ethernet port. The whole thing should be no larger than a telephone, except for the monitor and keyboard (infrared makes sense here!), and should cost well under $100 sans monitor to build. At THAT price point, giving boxes away makes a lot of sense. :}
  • In case you haven't noticed, Intel's marketshare in the low-end microprocessor market has been eroding faster than the Louisiana coastline.

    They are actually being dominated by AMD in certain sectors. That's a pretty radical shift, and I would say signals a certain amount of trouble.

  • Right now the TV Guide from the Internet idea has been implemented in WebTV. That and Wince devices hardly make Microsoft irrelevant in the appliance market.

    Admittedly, people probably don't care what OS their cell phone or remote control runs, although a full blown hand held unix would be geekycool for some.
    --

  • Well, in the mainstream computer market, complexity wins over a simple well focused solution almost every time. Look what happens when a new version of MS Office or Windows comes out. IS departments practically have to beat back the users that want to install it.

    However in the home market, dedicated devices make logicial sense. My mother, who couldn't use a Mac for the life of her, got up to speed on a WebTV in about 15 minutes.

    Yet, almost every attempt (with the exception of the WebTV and PalmPilot) at a "information appliance", going back to the original Macintosh, the Atari XL game unit, hundreds of telco and cableco expirements in home shopping and "infotext", the AmigaCD, the Pippen, AT+T's tablet computer, the Newton/eMate, cell phone computers, modems for Segas+Nintendos, and so on all have failed quite dramatically.
    --
  • IMHO, I don't see the "apppliance" to really be the future of personal computing. They may dominate in the home environment and they will probably be integrated with everything from your TV to your fridge, but people will always need powerful machines requiring powerful operating systems, with powerful software.
    These systems will come in many shapes and sizes like they do today... but they will always be there. Linux, MacOS X, Windows, Unix they'll be with us forever.

    I want some of that theoretical biological computing... using neurons and stuff. Wow, fast, complex, dream :)
  • Sure, there will be a market for something other than appliances, but that doesn't mean that there won't be a market for appliances.

    Answer honestly. How many people do you think would be well served by an appliance that did nothing but run an e-mail program, with HTML formatting, a good web browser, a news program, a chat client, and a streaming media client which supported the major formats? This appliance would just work, it would be available in less than 15 seconds, it would not crash. New functionality would be added seamlessly without user interaction.

    Such a device could even keep me happy for weeks at a time.

    What about a similar device that could also play playstation games and open and create Microsoft Office documents?

    I think that these features would satisfy most low end computer buyers, which could have repurcussions for the hardware market.

    Certainly these appliances would create greater need for servers and network equipment, but what would happen to the low to mid-range PC market. Would it whither and die, or would it survive as the back pasture for technologies originally developed for the high end.
  • (gosh I love when this issue pops up)

    From an administrator's POV, I'd imagine it would be great to see thin clients begin to replace PCs. Imagine only having to administer one box, maintain security in one place, and worry about hardware failures in one rack.

    Everyone (on slashdot anyway) always tries for the arguement about wanting to do X on their machine that you can't do from a thin client. Then you, as a knowledgable user, can maintain your own system, with your own peripherial Y that does what you need. Be it video capture, some special joystick, or 3d accelleration. Geeks like slashdot users are the exception.

    I'd even be one of the thin client users. I'm sure that as you're reading this, you think of yourself as one of the exceptions above, but how often do you REALLY do something out-of-the-ordinary with your system? To tell you the truth, all I ever do is: 1. netscape (for mail and browsing), 2. lyx, sc, and the like (or "Word" "Excel" "Powerpoint" for you MS people) 3. ssh, and 4. quake. Theoretically, most games could be played on a thin client. For the fancy ones, I could deal with moving using another platform. Now, what do YOU do that's above and beyond that?

    Long live Larry Ellison and his dream of centralized computing!

    -Chris
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • By God you're right! I predict that in ten years we will have given up the home PC in favor of (insert favorite item here) for several obvious reasons...


    How many years have we been hearing about the death of the PC? I agree that the PC's place in our lives will change, but in one way or another it will always be there.


    "Responsibility for my career? I'm just a freakin' phone monkey!"
  • I am an engineer at a large printer company (no, not that one), and we mada a printer a few years ago that combined a printer, scanner, and computer (with modem) all in one box, with at the time cutting edge technology. Result? Big flop.

    The problem is it was not easily upgradeable and looked scary to uninformed users.


    "Responsibility for my career? I'm just a freakin' phone monkey!"

  • Yes, it *can* happen. (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06, 1999 @04:09PM (#1946414)
    Why is it that when people say "information appliance", people instantly think of web browsers on fridges, and toasters talking to coffee grinders talking to juicers talking to clothes washers, and what would one have to say to the other?

    It's actually about a network where devices have access to the information they need when they need it, and the devices are not general-purpose computers with Red Hat Linux, a keyboard, and a 5-ton monitor attached. Take a look at the Ninja project at Berkeley. Think about what Sun's Jini was supposed to do.

    They're selling CD players now that can hold more CDs than most people own. Why the hell should you have to remember that CD #241 is "Garbage / Version 2.0". Worse, what good is it if you have your entire music collection in a device and you still have to futz with it every half hour at a party to get a reasonable music rotation going?

    Why, indeed, can't your CD changer be chatting with your home server which has a Net connection? It will pull down all the CDDB information ("ohhh, that's why they went proprietary") for your collection; you tell your system that you want the party to crescendo in music tone and pace over 5 hours, then decay over an hour while you shoo everybody out the door, then close with Elvis Costello to get the stragglers out. Some service like Firefly will take care of all the recommendations for you. Tell it you want "Queerest of the Queer" next song, and it will stick it into the rotation.

    Why, some people here have once wondered, is the Palm Pilot such a big deal. Everyone wants Linux on a handheld, don't they? Have you seen 3com's plans for the Palm VII and the way it will communicate with Internet services like Yahoo News, e-trade stock quotes, and all that other stuff? What else are they doing, besides missing the XML boat?

    They're turning it into an information appliance.

    Why, you might wonder, is Intel talking with Ericsson about wireless data communications in the home?

    They want to make information appliances.

    Q: What is Lamar Pott's new job at Be?

    A: Find out here [be.com]. Hint: It contains the word Internet and appliance.

    It's going to happen, and moreover, you want it to happen. At least I do. -Stephen van Egmond, svanegmond@home.com who forgot his slashdot ID.

  • Not appliances, but home networks (Score:3)

    by gavinhall ( 33 ) on Tuesday April 06, 1999 @03:08PM (#1946415)
    Posted by Mike@ABC:

    I don't see people running out to buy a lot of these appliances. Sure, there's a niche for WebTV and perhaps an e-mail appliance, especially among the older generations unfamiliar with computers.

    But I have to say, I think a networked home, with a server, a couple of workstations and a liberal assortment of thin clients, isn't beyond the realm of possibility. We're seeing it now with centralized, computerized climate controls and all-in-one entertainment centers. Give it a decade, maybe, and we'll start to see total solutions based on a home server or high-end PC.

    But again, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

  • can't happen. (Score:3)

    by Signal 11 ( 7608 ) on Tuesday April 06, 1999 @02:28PM (#1946416)
    Sorry, but there's only one problem with this arguement - who would buy a bunch of "information appliances" if you have 1 that does everything (even if it costs more).


    It's an analogy akin to saying I have a Widget that can function as a dishwasher, can opener, toaster, and microwave oven. Why would I want to replace my widget for all of those other appliances? My Widget can also be upgraded (free of charge) to support Oven Baking and Bread Making.




    --

  • Read the article you lunks (Score:3)

    by D-Fly ( 7665 ) on Tuesday April 06, 1999 @03:13PM (#1946417) Homepage Journal
    None of you have read the article, as best I can determine.

    The point was much more interesting than the headline suggests.

    Here's a nutshell:

    AOL/Netscape -vs- Wintel; AOL goes to war with Wintel by building Emachines-style boxes, loading them with a free OS like Linux (Windows now costs a significant portion of the computer price), and giving them away to anyone who signs up with them for Internet access.

    In the process, say goodbye to Apple with their proprietary OS. People will either buy a Wintel if they want to blow a lot of money, or take a free AOLbox if they are cheapos.

    It's an interesting point, I'd say.

    We've all seen that the market for cheapo PCs is actually quite big. That's why Intel is in trouble, and why Apple might be...
  • /* Insert tongue in cheek */

    That's it. I'm giving up my job. No more coding. No more debugging. No more deadlines. I'm going to be a technology columnist who makes radical predictions about the future of computing!

    Think about it -- you make money based on how many people read your work. If you want more people to read your work, just make more radical, controversial predictions. *Ka-chiiing* More money for you!

    Best of all, no one notices or remembers when you're wrong. If they do, you can just mumble about, "unforeseen market forces".

    If you run out of topics, just whip out a little essay on, "How technology is changing our lives." Content is optional!

    /* Remove tongue from cheek */

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is cheap, but the accessories can kill you.

Close