Customers would buy a closed/proprietary Microsoft PC

Since you're reading this, I need to assume you either can't get into Psystar's website or else you've already ordered your "Open Computer".

A colleague of mine recently made a statement that made my ears perk up - "What Microsoft needs to do is make a PC with a version of Windows locked to only run on that hardware." - He obviously was drawing to the conclusion that the success, stability performance and dare I say "wow factor" of Apple's Mac was the result of being able to control the experience end-to-end.  Don't agree with me ? - Read the Steve Jobs article in Fortune where he says just that.

I thought about this odd request for a few moments and then hit the reply button.  "They already have!", I exclaimed.  "It's called XBox/Xbox-360!"

There have been attempts close to this in the past.  I actually bought the very first Windows CE handheld computer (Compaq PC Companion C140) but that wasn't actually Microsoft's hardware. (Cassio & Compaq were identical, Phillips was much better)  The early TabletPC's were Toshiba reference designs, HTC is clearly the leader in Windows Mobile (and Android) smartphone devices. - But the only time Microsoft has produced hardware with an accompanying OS that I can think of is their failed home networking lineup (WindowsCE based, not Linux), XBox & Zune.

How many BSOD's have you seen on XBox ? How many bricked Zune's ? - Something tells me Microsoft can produce a solid platform if they reduce 3rd party variance.

This post sets me up for 2 future topics I want to share:

• The world needs a device which gives them less, not more.
• Virtualization technology may provide the great equalizer for stability. (Predicated on my belief that reducing variance at the hardware/driver/kernel-mode is the key.

Sorry for being so quiet lately - Alex has been keeping me busy and this post alone took 3 times longer because he's been trying to put nose-prints on my MacBook Pro's LCD (anyone that knows my aversion to fingerprints can imagine my displeasure).

Onya Cobbers !

Are Diamondvilles going to be our new best friend ?

My wife and I had an interesting conversation today spurred by the launch of the new, network sponsored, high-quality streaming media site Hulu. She asked what this meant for the producers & manufacturers of DVD's. Yes, I know that segment is more threatened by streaming movies than television programming of which Hulu is offering both, but since we grew up in a region of Michigan highly dependent on the auto-industry, we're both ultra sensitive about how companies and more importantly employees are going to respond to major paradigm shifts within a given market. From that point on, we chatted about how Blockbuster failed to quickly embrace/acquire/merge with Netflix, and how Netflix needs to quickly respond to the imminent threat posed by AppleTV and the ability to download movies from the iTunes store.

You're probably wondering - why did he paste in a picture from Intel if he's talking about Hulu ? -- The reason I call out Intel is because they are doing exactly what they need to do in order to preempt the industry shift from traditional PC's to more network centric "NetBook" and "NetTop" low cost compute devices. They recognize that the OS's of today are going to need to shift towards the world of compute-cloud and network based operating environments. They aren't going to wait for AMD, Via, Asus or the OLPC-XO to set the standard for what the low cost silicon generation of PC's is going to be.

Combining the low cost chipset/cpu platform with the ever-dropping price of NAND/SSD storage, the ever increasing bandwidth and desire for low-power alternatives should make Diamondville based NetTops a terrific platform for enterprise & consumers alike. Imagine being able to plug in your Microsoft StartKey (powered by Kidaro ?) - it's all possible - hang on tight.

From where I sit, Intel has a diamond in the rough on their hands - lets turn it into some bling !

Read the post that started this & learn more at Engadget

Ray Ozzie speaks - let's listen.

Today began with a great headline over at GigaOm.com.  Om Malik (one of my favorite journalists from his days at Business 2.0) posted an interview he held with Ray Ozzie, Microsoft's Chief Software Architect who replaced Bill Gates.  Rather than just posting praise or disagreement, I want to challenge people to listen to what was said as well as what was not spoken.

Let's focus in on just 2 key messages from the interview-

The Desktop OS today is not designed for the Internet
Ozzie points out that today we're using a desktop OS which was primarily oriented for running local applications.  The browser is basically the local application in which nearly all Internet content is rendered.  New software development never focuses on building local desktop applications and then giving them extensions for the web - it's web applications built with a web-services interface which traditional applications further down the line may take advantage of.

What wasn't said...

• The issue is not limited to Windows/Linux/OSX - I'm sorry, they all fail to shift to an Internet-based paradigm.  The fundamental issue is that we do not yet have a true "Internet - desktop operating system". (oh, and I'm pretty sure Cisco holds trademark on IOS, sorry Apple ;-)  The characteristics of an operating system designed for the Internet would be more like a cable set-top box, IP Phone, Cable Modem or any other relatively stateless device which can be centrally managed, updated, upgraded and provisioned.

Cloud computing isn't ready [yet]
In the interview, Ozzie talks about the downtime of services like Hotmail being demonstrable proof of service-computing immaturity- presumably Blackberry was in his mind as well.  They also did a very nice job of articulating the difference between Enterprise (monolithic, although he liked the term 'coupled') and Service Provider markets.  Too often I will hear a vendor say that they are going to lead in the Enterprise and then take to the SP market -- sorry folks, the SP is more than a big enterprise, it's a different business mode demanding a very different technology architecture.

What wasn't said...

• My colleague Bryan and I have heard the reliability argument several times recently.  I'm a huge fan and subscriber to JungleDisk which leverages back-end storage provided by Amazon S3.  If you want to talk about reliability and lack of uptime guarantees, lets talk about laptop hard drives and USB keyfobs.  If you demand greater uptime guarantees in your personal computing or enterprise computing applications, there's this little concept called "redundancy".  Both my home desktop and work computers have RAID-5 and RAID-10 configurations.  What if I subscribe to JungleDisk/S3 -- and user storage services from Google/Yahoo & yes - even my trusty 16GB USB key-fob for redundancy and backup?  If your device is nothing but an off-line cache of your on-line environment - where's the issue Ray ?

Ozzie said several things that I agree with.  I agree that we're on antiquated operating systems.  I had really hoped that he'd give us a glimpse into what he sees as the future.   I know of one concept which is very close the where I expect things to head.  I agree that cloud compute services are priced TODAY at levels which customers are ready to subscribe and at which profitable businesses will be born.

He also said a few things which I viewed as intentionally vague or misleading.  In what I view as an attempt to not fan the OS-religion flames, he omitted that the Internet-DISablement of the desktop OS is common across all forms (Win/Lnx/OSX).  He introduced FUD around cloud-compute reliability, perhaps because Microsoft is noticeably absent in this market today.  Lastly he questioned the near-term viability of mesh-applications - something whereby which very mature technology like BitTorrent for mesh CDNs already leverage a 'mesh' and it won't be long before IBM's Blue Cloud gets meshed-up with  Amazon's elastic compute services.

There you have it - more words than the original article, but hopefully a perspective which brings context to the randomness and rationale behind the obscure.

Best Regards,
Dave