Wednesday, September 25, 2002

So I hear about Blogs and such on IRights and I hear them talking about pingback...

Now, I ask myself... Why would I want to be notified when someone links to my entry? It would feed my vanity, or course... But as far as being worthwhile? I don't know. I think email works better for that kind of communication. Also, I think the google method I outlined on Aug 12 is better for that. If you want to see who links to you, you can, but you won't be attacked by it.

Thursday, September 12, 2002

This article in the Los Angeles Times: Crashing the blog party. Quite a good read.
I originally posted this on [/.]

Who said anything about "buying" CDs or DVDs? The hardware required will be this: CPU+Motherboard+HD. Everything else will be wireless in the home/office/neighborhood with self-healing and self configuring wireless network and "bridging" from wireless area to wireless area provided by fiber. The systems will have enough HD space (THANK YOU MAXTOR!!!) to store/cache all content out there simultaneously, without requiring centralized systems.

The systems will also run linux/java/python systems, will communicate through encrypted and user-managed protocols (like it was in the elder days) and the systems will just work 24/7. Take a look at the networking principles behind gaming (counterstrike etc) and hardcore porn to find fully decentralized (nothing to take down that can't be brought back up) and anonymous.

Your average consumer will be able to buy a $200 box with wireless, HD, AMD/transmeta, wireless (all protocols) etc, plug it in, and use the remote in the HDTV and voice activation to do all their stuff (movie, music, chatting online) (On an aside, how long until HDTVs come with built in cameras and microphones?) --If not the HDTV then your Playstation 2007.

See the internet from 1996 to 2002? 6 years. from 2002 to 2008? 6 years. Wireless everywhere. enterprise-grade servers as small as VCRs with terabytes of storage, IPv6, and giga-ethernet.
Want a movie? Pick up the remote, click the first three letters of the name, and press play. Free of charge. You know why? Because that movie will exist as nondescript 1meg chunks all over the network, and be fully downloaded to your own HD by the time the SurroundSound logo is displayed.

==

This was the optimistic view-- Now for the MS version.

==

Now you see what they want DRM for. MS wants to charge you for viewing that flick, and Hollyweird is (good boy, good boy; sit, Ubu, sit) fetching the legislators to make it happen.

Microsoft sees computer hardware like cars. In the beginning of the auto industries, there were thousands of automakers in the US. Now there are only three, and only two are not owned by a foreign corp, but are in bed hummering them [yeah, pun]. Same for airlines. 1950, a bunch. Now: Boeing, Airbus.

You see, they are using legislation to raise the "cost of entry" in the computer industry. They are finishing it in software, they are doing it in hardware. They (Microsoft) want to OWN all hardware manufaturers, keiretsu style (look it up, it's fascinating), worldwide, and thus be able to provide it "at reasonable cost" and with "adequate safeguards" to insure public safety and compliance with existing laws.

The beauty of this little scenario is that it's a true and tried method. Many industries have consolidated until there were only one or two top players. As long as industry centralization is not seen as a bother to the economy, governments turn a blind eye. I'll give you another example: Look at keyboards. It used to be that there were many companies making keyboards. It's a commodity now. It's almost free. People don't think about them. There's no talk about "opening the door" to competition in the keyboard market.
How about cell phones? Ericsson is tanking. Now all phones essentially do the same thing. They all have the same features. The base models are all "given" to you when you sign up for service. There's no talk about reviving competition in the cell-phone business. Now, they are basically all made in half a dozen factories in southern China, Taiwan, and Malaysia.

Likewise computers will be cheap, disposable items, and they will be all made the same, and sold below cost (like game consoles), and Microsoft will make its money from collecting the fee for "displaying" your "hollywood-provided" content (so that you, the consumer, may enjoy the oustanding performance as the Director intended).

Then the cost-of-entry or cost-of-staying in this business will be too great for competitors (who will fold^H^H^H^Hdiversify) and MS will essentially have aquired and entire industry without raising antitrust concerns.

===
now some ranting
===

I say fooey on all that. If AMD wants to play that game then they're going to lose market share, not gain any. The only people who don't care about DMR in their machines are already conditioned to buy Intel.

On the other hand, if they play their cards right, then they can ride the wave of the future and say buhbye to WinTel.

Remember. Geeks vote, and geeks end up making more money than non-geeks. Geeks are in fact the prime demographic for AMD. The only reason this hasn't been advertised is that geeks respond adversely to advertising. Without geeks, AMD would have tanked a long time ago. They'd better get their priorities straight. For AMD, it's not about meeting the street numbers for next quarter, it's about having a quarter after that.