-------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Is "Microsoft" Dead? > From: "Rick Root" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 4/8/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think we're still in the infant stages of "Web 2.0" apps... I > wouldn't be surprised at all to see web-based versions of Office > applications start to take hold in the next 5 years. Maybe not in the > business market, but who knows.
Exactly - I'm not saying that it won't happen; but I'm also not saying that it will either. Right now I don't think that the value or functional propisitions are there. That will change (if we keep moving on this path) but we'll see how far they come. No matter how it turns out we're definately living in interesting times. > > Except for FireWire you've just described a PS3 perfectly. ;^) > > Granted, but price and availability is the issue there. For something > like this to work, it can't be that expensive. How expensive is "expensive"? The Wii is $250 - which is cheaper than WebTV was - and you get game. ;^) The PS3, granted, is defiantely pricey at $500, but again people are going to buy that for other reasons as well. I think that game consoles are good benchmark: the costs there tell us what people are willing to spend for essentially non-essential devices (entertainment devices). Granted they're still expensive (only a fool or a king would say that they're cheap), but their success shows that people are willing to spend that much - at least every once in a while. > What I'd ultimately like to see is the ability to tack a keyboard and > mouse onto my digital cable box... switch to channel 999 or whatever, > and surf the web. That might happen - but I doubt it will be what you want. For me, at least, I want a "real" web experience. I want full Flash, JavaScript (AJAX) and security. In other words I'd be interested only in "high-end" browsing. I want the kids to be able to play Flash games and have no interest in "low end" experiences. A lack of plug-ins (Flash, audio, video, etc) or plug-ins with so little memory that most sites won't load (as with the PSP where many Flash movies won't load) has been the norm. Those compromises stem directly from the hardware. Cable boxes have potential (MS is dumping millions into building that market... trying to "innovate" as Gruss would say ;^) ) but right now are way too limited. They've great at decoding encrypted video (there's a chip in there for that) but the general purpose OS side of things is woeful. Sub 486 class processors, miniscule RAM and no local storage to speak of (although DVR boxes could probably use their hard disks). Look at the interface provided by your cable box now - look at the speed of it, the complexity and the responsiveness: that's what these things are designed to handle. They can handle more - but just not that much more. > You mention that the game console is the likely candidate for what I'd > like to see, but game consoles are expensive. The digital cable box > is nearly as likely, because it's essentially a computer anyway. > Heck, my Scientific Atlanta HD-DVR cable box has USB ports and > everything. True - but that's a superficial similarity. That box doesn't have a processor or memry capable of handling even simple web pages. > I think the cable box is just as likely, but I'm not sure cable > companies are that innovative. More specifically Cable Companies are too cheap. As they stand Cable Boxes (assuming HD and DVR) cost the companies hundreds of dollars each. They pass that (huge) cost off to us but even then they don't see a profit on boxes until after several years of service. Enhancing the box for full Web functionality would add significantly to the costs - and to the time-to-profit. The costs go up even more for other devices - a high-end TIVO still costs in the $500 range. I'm not saying that nobody will do it - but cable companies are notouriously anti-new technology. That said even current boxes may be able to support a limited terminal server. With fiber-to-the-home it may make more sense to support something like that. Instead of your cable box runnng "Nick.com" your cable box would be connecting to a remote virtual machine and piping it's output to you. Even a small server farm could support hundreds of virtual browsing sessions so the cost wouldn't be THAT bad. That could definately be a way to support high-end browsing on low-end equipment. And of course as things get cheaper cable boxes could definately get more complex and feature-rich. One issue there however is that the future is pushing (via CableCard and broad industry standardization like IPTV) a cable-boxless future. Instead you get an encryption card from your cable-company that plugs into your TV or your TIVO or whatever. Sony's been dreaming about this world for a while: this is why they still keep talking about Cell Chips in TVs and Stereos and so forth. In their view your TV should provide Web Browser, media extender functionality and entertainment hub capabilities. I'm not sure if they'll ever get there but some of the new stuff (like the Bravia line of TVs) is interesting - hugely, vastly, amazingly expensive - but interesting. ;^) Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJP Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:232149 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
