Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

I, Cringely On A Momentous Week

Posted by Zonk on Fri May 13, 2005 05:18 PM
from the warping-space-and-time dept.
rocketjam writes "Robert X. Cringley offers his take on three recent high-tech occurrences, saying they add up to an 'inflection point' that will change the landscape of the personal computer, video game, and electronic entertainment businesses forever. He briefly points out that Bill Gates' revelation that the next-gen XBox will offer music and movie playing capabilities as well as web-surfing will put MS into direct competition with its hardware OEM customers. He also touches on Yahoo's new music service and Apple's rumored movie download service. The meat of the article though is his take on the significance of Google's Web Accelerator. He says, 'If surfing can be doubled in speed for nothing, of course nearly everyone will go for it', the upshot of which is that AOL, MSN and Earthlink lose their relevancy. From this point more speculation on the implications of Google's success in this endeavor ensues."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Gasp! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Meagermanx (768421) on Friday May 13 2005, @05:20PM (#12524999)
    The computer world is changing? OMFG!!
  • ooOO (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stanistani (808333) on Friday May 13 2005, @05:21PM (#12525008) Homepage Journal
    Cringely is somewhat more reliable than Dvorak...
    but we still need the "pundit deduction" in force here.

    I do wonder about the xBox 360 though... can you say, "PC?"
  • More on XBOX 360. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2005, @05:21PM (#12525013)

    I work at Microsoft as do several of my friends. A couple work on the XBOX 360 and told me something over beer that really struck me as great marketting. Microsoft has purposely designed this box to be easy to break and mod-chip. The reason? Sales. They can go to game design houses and say "We sold X million units. You should design for us." and they will. Very much as in how they don't care much about the home pirate as they know it gives them mindshare.

    I'm not breaking an NDA here as I'm not actually on the dev team.
    • How does this attitude jive with making a lower barrier to XBox Live? In case people don't know, XBox Live will be a two-tiered service, in which the free members can still chat with other members, access statistics, download certain types of content and play for free on weekends.

      Obviously, if XBox Live is more attractive, people will do the opposite of what you're describing: they'll be hesitant to mod their Xboxes, because then they won't be able to access Live. That is, unless Microsoft stops caring a
      • Re:More on XBOX 360. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I'm the original poster.

        MS sells lots of XBOXs because they can be mod'd

        They tell game makers "We sold X units."

        Game makers make more games based on that

        MS says "We have Y games for XBOX 360!"

        People buy more XBOX 360s.

        Mod chips can easily be turned off for XBOX Live play.

        Microsoft has all the various mod chips in their R&D lab. They know how they work and they're leaving loopholes for the mod chip makers in the future product. They don't care if the game companies have 30% of their games pirated,

        • Re:More on XBOX 360. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Julian352 (108216) on Friday May 13 2005, @05:48PM (#12525243)
          That sounds VERY iffy for the reason that if the word gets out that Xbox 360 is easily modded, publishers will try to release games first on other consoles to get more sales and then port them to X360. The pirating of games is the biggest problem for the makers, as it costs them direct sales. The big benefit of console market is the fact that it's so much harder to pirate.
      • The hd is removable. The hackers can have one hard drive for their modded xbox, and one hard drive for their LIVE play.
    • Quote:
      I'm not breaking an NDA here as I'm not actually on the dev team.

      Well, but MS still hates you: modded xboxes will presumably also play warez games, so the game design houses now won't be convinced that easily that the plattform already has a hole in it...
    • Re:More on XBOX 360. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Vaevictis666 (680137) on Friday May 13 2005, @05:46PM (#12525226)
      Actually, the fact that XBox360 has networked music/video playback stock intrigues me quite a lot.

      The main reason I modded my xbox was just for that reason, and I think I'm accurate in saying that my xbox has spent more than 20 times as much time running XBMC (for streaming video from my PC for the most part) than it has spent running games.

      If this is built in to the 360, then that cuts out a big reason for many people to mod it, which to me seems like good business sense. I'm just curious how comparable the two are.

    • by Rorschach1 (174480) on Friday May 13 2005, @05:53PM (#12525284) Homepage
      Yeah, the 'install modchip here' silkscreen on the motherboard was a dead giveaway.
    • I'm not breaking an NDA here as I'm not actually on the dev team.

      No, but you are a Microsoft employee, so you probably *are* breaking a general (perhaps even implied) NDA. Company employees generally are *not* at liberty to discuss unannounced stuff publicly, whether they're directly involved or not.

      For example, I can't tell you about a number of projects being developed by my company, and I'm not involved with any of them, either. (Not that you'd care about them, of course)
    • by oGMo (379) on Friday May 13 2005, @06:59PM (#12525791)

      Congrats, you broke my bullshit detector.

      First, if you work for someplace with an NDA, it covers any nondisclosure information unless they're totally incompetant... so even if you overheard someone while getting coffee, you're probably still breaking NDA. In fact, you could be breaking NDA even if it's not true.

      Second, the revenue stream for a console is its games. Weak or no copy protection scares developers. The Xbox 360 will probably be sold at a huge loss, so there's no profit from just selling consoles. Is mindshare worth that much?

      Third, even if you're telling the truth on both counts, I wouldn't be bragging about this. It makes the 360 reek even more of Dreamcast: out early, no protection, big hype... big flop.

    • I've so much always wanted to say this:

      > I work at Microsoft as do several of my friends...

      Oh, I'm terribly sorry!

      Simon
      • But more units sold does make a more attractive market to game publishers, since the number of units sold does not indicate the number of units modded. Mind you also that a lot of XBox games will be designed for Live, which may or may not work on modded boxes (probably won't.) Thus to play them, people will still have to buy the game and use it on an umodded box.

        At the same time, I'm not sure I believe the grandparent poster...
        • by snuf23 (182335) on Friday May 13 2005, @07:35PM (#12525969)
          Then why do they currently actively ban modded Xboxs from accessing Live? Why have they changed the way they detect modded Xboxs on Live to get around newer mod chips that allow locking the hard drive?
          The obvious statement about banning comes from the fact that modded Xboxs can run hacks which can lead to cheating. However the PC suffers from this problem anyway and the PC game companies provide things such as Punkbuster to block out cheaters.
          I'd love to believe what you are saying and I'd love to see homebrew development on Xbox 360 - but it doesn't seem to jive with the current Xbox mod situation.
  • will put MS into direct competition with its hardware OEM customers.

    And, once Microsoft begins to gradually dominate that market, their positions might become similar to that of a Wal-Mart supplier. Their business models will change as they begin to provide manufacturing services for Microsoft.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2005, @05:26PM (#12525052)
    ASOTV, it's been a good ride, but all good things must come to an end. Cringley used you as his source [slashdot.org] of insider info in this article. This would normally mean that you are in trouble, but you have been so blithe about revealing company strategy (and philosophy, and personal opinion of SJ, etc) that you are clearly not worried about job security. I wonder why? Who at Apple is not worried about job security? I do not think you are Steve Jobs. In any case, some big eyes are now turned in your direction, and you should probably be more tight-lipped. But thanks for some great posts!
  • by Mr. Flibble (12943) on Friday May 13 2005, @05:31PM (#12525095) Homepage
    I swear, each time he comes out with a new article about a given toy that does "XYZ" or can be hacked in some way I am compelled to go out and buy one and tinker with the damn thing.

    Stop Robert! Stop for the sake of my pocketbook and my sanity!!!
  • Speaking as an OEM (Score:3, Interesting)

    by scronline (829910) on Friday May 13 2005, @05:35PM (#12525131) Homepage
    People buy from us because they DON'T want to have to deal with companies like Dell, HP, Compaq and the like. They also have a love hate relationship with Microsoft. They hate the company, but they also love having a computer. They already know the shoddy software microsoft puts out.

    Personally, this just reinforces my opinions of late of the complete end of sales with Microsoft products. If a "partner" decides to go into direct competition, then they cease to be a valid partner. Linux is gaining mindshare and market share. Windows has become the product every wants to get rid of but is afraid they can't.

    Hence forth a new business model for any OEM is to offer Linux training and products. Free of charge or very low cost. Let's show MS that they can't piss on the army of people who help put them where they are by even supporting their crap. If it wasn't for places like mine all over the US, how would MS get their stuff repaired? You know full well they won't work with someone over the phone to resolve issues. That will just take more value away from their products. And of course the huge OEMs answer is always "use the restore CD" and fail to mention that data will be lost.
  • no no no (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lo_fye (303245) <derek@geekunity.com> on Friday May 13 2005, @05:48PM (#12525245) Homepage Journal
    First, using a "web accelerator" will NOT speed up your computer and turn it into a Thin Client. It will make things get to your computer faster, but if you don't have the juice to render it, it's still a no go.

    Second, it is technically impossible for Google to pre-render Flash and pass it on to you. Flash isn't "server-side" -- it's done by your computer, which needs to be fat enough to run it.

    Third, Yahoo's music service is priced well, but they're still misleading. They say "1 million songs" for $6.99/month, but that's to have them streamed to you, not downloaded. You can only download a handfull of tracks per month. Booo!

    Fourth, why didn't Cringley (or anyone for that matter) ask if/when Google will try to buy Yahoo?

    Lastly, no mention of Flickr? I think Google messed up when they let that puppy slip through their fingers and be purchased by Yahoo. Picasa? Puh-lease-a.
  • by saforrest (184929) on Friday May 13 2005, @05:51PM (#12525267) Homepage Journal
    It's an expression made popular in Silicon Valley years ago by Andy Grove of Intel: "inflection point." It's that abrupt elbow in a graph of growth or decline when the new technology or paradigm truly kicks in, and suddenly there is no going back.

    Man, I really wish that Cringely, as a supposed pundit to the geek masses, would not contribute to distorting into sensationalist manager-ese technobabble a phrase that already has a precise mathematical meaning [wikipedia.org].
  • by Strudelkugel (594414) on Friday May 13 2005, @05:55PM (#12525301)

    At that point, you'll buy your PC from Google, use Google as your ISP, surf an Internet that is really the Google cache,

    (A) Right about here the DOJ decides to take action...

    be fed ads and sold content from Google servers. Its a GoogleWorld that requires no AOL, no Microsoft, no Intel, no HP or Dell -- only Google, cable companies, telephone companies, users, and of course advertisers and web page producers.

    Doubtful because of (A).

    It's surprising to me that he didn't mention the comment of the week; that from Gates about mobile phone making iPods obsolete. It was an important observation, since it is already happening. My phone serves as an MP3 player already. While it doesn't have the capacity of the iPod (yet), who cares... It has an antenna, has considerably more functionality, and I Always-Have-It-With-Me(TM)

  • by theclam159 (833616) on Friday May 13 2005, @05:56PM (#12525319)
    The new Xbox has several processors, 512MB RAM, a good graphics card, a hard drive, HD video quality, network connectivity, and is supposedly easily moddable. Eventually someone is going to get Windows or Linux to run on this and run WELL. When that happens, you'll be able to buy a highly capable PC for $300. An interesting side effect of this, is that Microsoft has to sell these things at a loss, in order to remain competitive to Sony and Nintendo. Therefore, this might be bad for their profits.
    • Since Linux already supports PowerPC, methinks it would be a heck of a lot easier to get Linux to run on an Xbox 360. That and the fact that anybody in the world can hack Linux to run on Xbox, but only a Microsoft employee can hack Windows.

      You can ALREADY buy a capable PC from Dell for $299... what makes you think the Xbox 360 price point will be $300??? Most guesses I've seen are closer to $500. Plus the accessories (e.g. 802.11 adapter) will be more expensive because it is a closed architecture. So while

  • So.

    Cringely is impressed that Google is offering a web accelerator service, something AOL has done for years; that the XBox will play music and video, something the playstations 1 and 2 did, respectively; that Yahoo is unveiling a service almost identical to the Napster service that appeared in the wake of the iTunes Music Store; and that Apple may, at some unspecified point in the future be releasing a product.

    Well, that's all well and good. But I think the really important thing for the tech market is, will Gore or Bush win the election? Because Cringely doesn't weigh in on that at all.
    • Cringely is impressed that Google is offering a web accelerator service, something AOL has done for years;

      Well something to think about - AOL grew out of their own network, which sucked but they had full control over, into an interweb gateway (which they still suck at) but google has done it simply as a side effect of having built the required infrastructure they use to do other tasks very very well. With a small effort they've nearly moved into another market and further solidified their status as valua

  • by klossner (733867) on Friday May 13 2005, @06:14PM (#12525467)
    Cringely had a lot of interesting things to say in his prime. But now he's moved out of the valley, and many of his columns trumpet the Next Big Thing when it's not really.

    Here, he seems to have missed the fact that Google Accelerator has already failed and is being withdrawn. The world is not going to redesign their web pages so that GETs have no side effect.

    A couple of weeks ago, he waved his hands and explained that airline scheduling is just like network scheduling and you can speed up the net by eliminating the hubs and running traffic directly from one host to another. Then he waved his hands again and said that hubs are servers.

    Last December after the tsunami, he told us how to build a warning system that could be deployed by putting a networked PC "on every populated beach a month from now." Never mind that third-world populated beaches usually don't have electricity, much less an internet connection.

    Last July he designed a scheme to compress video for broadcast by encoding only what the retina was focusing on. But it would work only if every person receiving the broadcast always pointed their retinas to the same place as everyone else.

    Cringely is at his best when describing a funky experiment that he's actually done, like when he was one of the first to put a WiFi antenna in a Pringles can. But his blue-sky predictions just don't fly anymore.

  • by Peter Cooper (660482) on Friday May 13 2005, @06:20PM (#12525512) Journal
    'If surfing can be doubled in speed for nothing, of course nearly everyone will go for it', the upshot of which is that AOL, MSN and Earthlink lose their relevancy.

    Er, maybe not. For a start, the GWA doesn't "double" surfing speed. Second, with current bandwidth, I doubt most people would notice or care much about "double" text-loading speeds (GWA doesn't get that sort of compression on images, MP3s, etc, obviously). Third, it's not complex technology. People have been developing (and using) this crap for ages. It's not as if Google have cracked cheap, in-your-house nuclear fusion.
  • by KillerBob (217953) on Friday May 13 2005, @07:11PM (#12525854)
    It's a proxy server with server-side compression. Plain and simple. That's all it does. One of my former ISP's was doing this years ago, and it wasn't that great.

    http://webaccelerator.google.com/support.html#basi cs2 [google.com]

    Revolutionary, it is not.
  • rendering flash? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blue_adept (40915) on Friday May 13 2005, @07:33PM (#12525958)
    If Google adds power to its part of the Accelerator, you don't have to add power to your end, meaning your old PC can last longer. Part of that has to come from Google assuming a larger role over time, taking responsibility for rendering Flash, for example. And they'll do it.

    wtf is this guy talking about? How is google going to render my flash? what a dumbass.
  • 1. Cringley reads Slashdot for industry inside-information. It's the end of an era.

    2. Microsoft is finally playing someone else's game. The surprise is that it's Apple, like always. Colour me astonished.

    3. Google accelerator. So noone is bothered by privacy concerns about an Internet-sized cache? Never saw that coming.
  • Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zebra_X (13249) on Friday May 13 2005, @08:11PM (#12526140)
    Cringley touches on some good points. However his analysis of Google accelerator is seriously lacking in imgaination.

    There is a really, really, really, really good reason for Google to go through this "Heroic" effort. In fact, it is almost sickeningly self serving. Googles accelerator will allow them to capture the click stream of every participating user. That is, google will know where you are going, what you are reading, and how long you are reading it for. That is, they will have an entire stream of data to more accurately return search results and target ads. This will also help their page rank system be more "accurate".

    This isn't a technology play as Cringely supposes - IBM's not doing this becuase umm, wait they don't do that sort of thing - MS isn't doing it becuase they don't really have a need for the data. Google is "catching" up to companies like double click and poindexter at the moment. Their plan will ultimately give them way more data than any other ad server out there. Online advertising is about data, the more data you have about a user, the larger a profile they can build about you. In google's case they can make their targeted ad offerings far more relevent which will equal $$$.
  • by mveloso (325617) on Friday May 13 2005, @08:23PM (#12526192)
    One problem that any search engine has is getting URLs.

    How do you index URLs? Simple: you start someplace and spider out from there.

    What if people are going directly to unlinked, or unindexable pages?

    Well heck, you stick something in the way so you see everyplace they go.

    Simple. GWA is just a way for Google to get a lead on the "dark web," just like the google toolbar. From your point of view, it speeds stuff up somewhat. That's it!
  • by korielgraculus (591914) on Saturday May 14 2005, @12:08AM (#12527219)
    Has Cringely even read the released information about the XBox 360? It will stream video and audio FROM A PC! How exactly is this competing with PC manufacturers? To get the most out of the system you will need a PC running ... wait for it ... Windows Media Center! What MS seems to be saying is that the future of the home PC (as far as they are concerned) is tied up with Media Center. The XBox 360 is an extension of a PC system, not a replacement.
    • " I would say this is really just MORE proof that Apple has been ripping people off for years by putting out underpowered computers to save a few bucks and then jacking up the price."

      Erm. Couple of things:

      1.) Microsoft is almost definitely losing money on these units. That would be a dumb business move for Apple.

      2.) It's not clear, today, whether or not those processors could do the general computing jobs they'd need to on desktop machines. I'm going to be honest, I don't know much about this. I j
      • I just remember reading in another thread about how the XBOX 360 processors likely have several things trimmed out of them. (Note: If anybody can correct me, it'd be mucho appreciated.)

        Well, it is already clear that they are NOT PowerPC cores. The hardware specifications state that they are BASED on PowerPC, so you can't assume identical clock-for-clock performance. Most likely the hardware in the XBOX360 will be much more powerful than anything below high-end Macs (that will be 2x2.7 at that time, if

    • If a $300 Xbox360 has a triple-core 3.2 GHz PowerPC in it, I would say this is really just MORE proof that Apple has been ripping people off for years by putting out underpowered computers to save a few bucks and then jacking up the price.

      First, it's a multi-core 3.2GHz PowerPC based cell controller not a PowerPC CPU in the classical sense. Sony also has abandoned the CPU design in favor of multi-cell design for PS3. Second, the later something is designed, the newer it's components can be. Third, it's may not be up to Apple. Apple has always been at the mercy of its suppliers. Motorola could not provide enough G4 chips for the PowerMac a few years ago. Hence, they dumped Motorola when they decided to develop the G5. When IBM comes out with a 3GHz PowerPC CPU that Apple can use and Apple doesn't use it, then you might have a point.

    • by VGR (467274) on Friday May 13 2005, @06:09PM (#12525430)
      Indeed.

      One of the more prized members of my collection is a CompuMate. It's a keyboard that plugs into an Atari 2600, making the machine into a computer with a usable BASIC.

      For over 20 years, every damn console has tried to say, "Look, it's also a computer!" And every single time, it's an utter flop. No one will use a console to do what a computer does, because the console invariably is a substandard personal computer.

      Seriously, how many times have we seen this? The CompuMate, the Intellivision Computer Adaptor, the Coleco Adam, the FamiCom, the Sega Channel ... in fact, I just saw a Dreamcast Web Browser CD in a flea market the other day. Anyone ever use that?

      No gaming console will ever threaten personal computers in any area except gaming (and even that's arguable). I don't know that I've ever seen a single business lesson which has been so forcibly resisted by one generation of companies after another.
      • GWA compresses such content, which reduces the size up to 75% It compresses text and HTML by up to 75%. Unfortunately, MP3, GIF, MPEG, and JPEG are already compressed, so it can't compress them at all! Since HTML is already usually pretty small compared to audio and video, I don't really see how GWA helps much, unless you only surf to text-only sites! Yes, prefetching should help -- especially if your latency is large.
        • Load Time for 2668 Pages
          Without Google Web Accelerator: 1.9 hrs
          With Google Web Accelerator: 1.5 hrs


          that is for a european user with a pIV 2.4 and 1 gig ram on a 3mbit dsl line.

          i case you're asking yourself "how are the numbers calculated": Performance statistics are estimated by testing a percentage of requested pages.