Maximum PC future RSS Feed

Dreaming of a Simpler, More Cylindrical Time? D-Roll's Got You Covered

Andy Salisbury — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:24:51 -0500

Your laptop is pretty cool by today’s standards, but designer Hao Hua has something entirely different in mind for the future. That machine of the present that features an archaic hinge has served humanity well, but he plans to fit all that inside a fancy tube, making an already easy to carry machine, even easier.

The D-Roll (short for “digital roll”) concept allows anyone carrying one of these portable babies around with them to sling it under their arm, much like a purse. And, when you need some quick computing power, your screen will come out on one side and the keyboard will slide out the other.

While this is only a concept for what the portable computer of the future may look like (for some reason, the idea of carrying a murse just doesn’t sit right with me), it is an interesting look. Who knows, it might not be far off!

Image Credit: Hao Hua

The Future of Web Apps Isn't... Free?

David Murphy — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:35:11 -0600

It almost seems like common sense, but 37signals' Jason Fried had some specific words for those in attendance at this year's Future of Web Apps conference in Miami, Florida: the future is not free.

Continuing on, his point is that companies need to turn away from the business model of pump-and-dumping free applications to a gleeful audience. Open-source and free software might be an excellent means for attracting attention and eyeballs to a product, but now is not the time to pack alternate revenue strategies around these concepts. Advertising and other extraneous revenue add-ons are a distraction that pulls a company away from developing benefits for its customers, argues Fried. It's time to shift back to a meat-and-potatoes business model, and that involves selling a product that contains enough quality to make an audience want to pay for it, even given the current economic difficulties.

But that's not to say that there isn't a place for free software in the modern business model. A company needs to consider the distinction between people who would use an application for nothing versus those would actually cough up the cash. That's where Fried's concept of a high-quality product comes into the picture. Instead of turning away from development to focus on external revenue add-ons for free software, Fried believes that companies need to focus on churning out high-quality software development. That's the 37signals model, at least: 90 percent of the company's revenue comes from Web applications like its Basecamp project management system. The rest is split between advertising, job listings, and other miscellaneous income like books.

It's a compelling argument that's already played out in the open-source world on both sides. Consider the case of Adobe's Photoshop: It remains the dominant graphical platform even given the alternative of open-source alternatives like Gimp. On the flip side, look at Google. The company accrues massive amounts of traffic and interest with its free Web products. It then sells this rapt audience straight to advertisers, although the argument can be made that Google has yet to find success beyond its money-making search tie-ins.

So is the future free? I think Fried's point finds its best applicability as a recommendation. Splitting the difference always feels lame, but it's exactly how the future of Web-based business could play out. A company needs both sides to generate the greatest combination of appeal and profit: free software that can attract interest, balanced with a strong revenue generation mechanism that isn't just tied to third-party services with no relationship to product enrichment. Get the eyeballs interested, then offer them a quality product for consumption. Or as Fried puts it in an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, "Free is OK as long as you have something to sell."

Open Source, the Destroyer of Software?

David Murphy — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:30:24 -0600

Does open-source software do more to hurt the industry or help? You might guess the latter: We certainly did. But as it turns out, open-source software can actually be the bane of smaller software developers. After all, what does one do when one's primary meal-ticket gets taken over by the open-source community? For most developers, that's a lights-out proposition. But is this a reflection of where software development is expected to head in the future? Will it be a free for all?

This concept all came about as I was searching through my usual RSS feeds of open source news and tidbits. Over on a Slashdot developer forum, a reader posted the following situation:

"My company is an open source software vendor/developer. We maintain a popular open source project and keep ourselves afloat by producing commercial products derived from or extending the value of the core project. Over time we've seen our business model eroding as other open source projects produce free versions of the same extensions and utilities that are our bread and butter. Something that was worth $5K last year is suddenly worth $0 because the free version is just as good as the paid. This same cycle is obviously having an impact on pure-play commercial software vendors. Is open source ultimately a race to zero?"

It's a curious entanglement, one that hits at the very core of the commercial open source marketplace. But it's not universal. Do you think Microsoft is hurting from the development of Open Office (or on a non-open-source note, Google Docs)? Doubtful. But that depends on the nature of its users. At the company I work for, we tend to see out-of-the-box software as the de-facto solution merely because it's easy to implement and comes with a general level of assurance that it'll work exactly the way you want it to. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of PhotoShop on my PC. And I've switched between a number of open-source alternatives just to find one that's ideal for the quick edits I work with. Would I use PhotoShop before one of these programs, even given its increased cost and feature-set? In a heartbeat.

I realize this isn't universal -- some companies thrive on the use of open-source software, a concept I've discussed in previous articles. But I still remain unconvinced that open-source, as a whole, is bumping commercial software out of the market. Nor do I think that, in the case of the above user, there's no reason why a company can't compete against a free version of its own product. On the product level, it's a question of interface: Give your users a flexible way of working with your program that's easy to operate and, perhaps more importantly, easy to learn. I don't care how much a program offers if the UI is too clunky to work around. Beyond that, there are all the revenue generation approaches that other open-source companies have mastered: Different licensing tiers for applications, paid support, features above-and-beyond the common OSS offering, et cetera. This is perhaps said best by one of the replies to the situation I posted above:

"I can say this is the model that directly affects us. I work for a large US corporate who sells enterprise software to governments and similar. We've been beaten in bids by our #1 competitor for a while, it turns out they are offering the software for free, as long as the buyer takes on a services contract (think outsourced IT type thing) that would support the software and hardware required to run it."

But to suggest that the software market as a whole is headed toward a $0 solution is erroneous. Open source is an alternative, it's not a dominant force. While the general trend of software is toward a free end, in the sense that more and more types of software eventually reach a zero price, that doesn't mean that there won't be plenty of alternatives on the other side of the spectrum that use new feature and compatibilities to warrant a fee. And people will buy these solutions, rather than download a crappy new version in the open-source market. Of course, that all depends on what market you're talking about -- consumers act a lot differently than enterprise customers. Or do they?

How does the OSS marketplace affect you in your line of work? Leave a comment!

Is This What Linux Will Look Like in 2012?

Paul Lilly — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:24:00 -0500

Four years is an eternity in the computer world, but it doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that Linux will continue making headway against Microsoft's close-source Windows OS. Between Vista needing gimmicks to convert the skeptics (Mojave), to increasingly user-friendly versions of Ubuntu, Microsoft may find itself in a grudge match with the open-source community by 2012. But what can we expect out of a Linux distro in 48 months? InformationWeek attempts to answer that question with a mix of bold predictions and some much needed feature enhancements. Let's take a look at some of the highlights.

Three Basic Usage Modes

Linux has traditionally been free for most users, but in-store boxed copies complete with a price tag have started popping up, and IW says this trend will "at least gain nominal momentum." Free to use variants won't be disappearing anytime soon, and IW sees free distributions that contain no components with patent encumbrances or other issues picking up steam.

Linux Gear

While Linux hardware is already present in a plethora of devices, look for it to become a brand name four years down the road, pushed in large part by the continued popularity of the Netbook market.

Bye-Bye Command Line!

One of the biggest roadblocks preventing Linux from marching into the mainstream market is ease-of-use. The days of typing in commands died with DOS, but on a Linux distro, even some basic configurations might require the user to fire up the Terminal. Of course, there are legions of Linux-ites that prefer it this way, the same ones who not so affectionately refer to Ubuntu as Noobuntu.

Catch all the predictions here, then tell us your Linux predictions below!

Image Credit: PenguinsUnbound.org

Microsoft Shows Off Its Sphere Interface Concept

Paul Lilly — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:27:02 -0500

The surface of the earth was once thought to be flat, and just as it was eventually proven to be round, will technophiles make the same discovery when it comes to surface computing? It's far too early to tell what the future of surface computing has in store, but don't be surprised if years from now your PC looks more like a globe than a flat screen.

Giving a glimpse of such a future, Microsoft showed off its spherical Surface computer during the company's annual Research Faculty Summit in Redmond. Attendees got a chance to play with the prototype that relies on an infrared system to detect hands, fingers, and objects.

"It's really an exploration of ideas," explained Hrvoje Benko, the Microsoft researcher spearheading the project.

Getting touch technology to work on a curved surface was no easy task, but Microsoft researches came up with advanced algorithms to translate images originally intended for a flat PC screen and display them correctly on the rounded globe. So far applications for the Sphere include a picture and video browser, interactive globe visualization, finger painting, and an omni-directional video conferencing application with 360 degrees of panoramic video.

Catch the YouTube video here, which also includes a version of a Pong like you've never seen before.

Image Credit: Microsoft

Intel Executive Thinks The Lines Between Human and Machine Will Blur by 2012

Justin Kerr — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 16:23:24 -0500

Intel just passed its 40^th anniversary and the nostalgic occasion had CTO Justin Rattner musing about the future of technology. He foresees new breakthroughs in medical technologies, specifically with regards to nanoscale chips capable of moving through our bodies. Additionally, he predicts more realistic robotic intelligence, and a blurring of reality between humans and machines. Chuckle if you may, but in his 35 years at Intel, Rattner has witnessed some pretty amazing advances in technology, many of which Intel was at the forefront of. When the microprocessors first debuted in 1971 they contained about 2,300 transistors. It has since ballooned to over 820 million and the personal computer has become ubiquitous in our everyday lives. If Moore’s law holds true, and we have no reason to think otherwise, the future may indeed be a very different reality from what we understand today. According to Rattner, “In the next 40 years, computer chips will extend beyond our computers and phones, as people want to become more entrenched in virtual worlds and computers learn to react to our motions and thoughts.”

So what do you think the future holds?

One Step Closer to Quantum Computers

Chris Moody — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:46:31 -0500

The folks at Purdue University who are working to bring us miniaturized refrigeration are also working on Quantum computing. They have created a new, hybrid molecule in which its quantum state can be intentionally manipulated, useful in the building of quantum computers. Quantum computers could harness the strange behaviors found in quantum physics to create computers that would carry information using quantum bits, or qubits. Got a headache yet?

They go on to say that quantum computers also could take advantage of the strange behaviors of quantum mechanics perhaps like two quantum computers could communicate instantaneously across any distance imaginable, or maybe the binary bits we are used to dealing with could exist in their usual on or off state, but also a both on and off state. Okay I need aspirin now.

We don’t have to worry about seeing a quantum PC anytime soon. They say this new discovery won’t bring quantum computers even 10 years closer.

Who knew? Purdue doesn’t just bring chicken to mind anymore. They are working hard on building the future PC enthusiast's dream machine.

Fast Forward: Multicore vs. Manycore

Tom Halfhill — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:18:35 -0500

In the last few years, PC processors have exploded from single-core designs to dual-core and now quad-core chips. The first eight-core PC processor will probably appear by the end of this decade. Beyond that, 12- and 16-core chips are possible. What then?

Some CPU architects believe the current road is a dead end, much like the pursuit of superfast clock speeds with single-core processors. Although the x86 cores that AMD and Intel use in their multicore chips are more efficient than previous cores were, today’s cores are still too large and power hungry to sustain the momentum of multicore progress. Some engineers argue that multicore chips must give way to “manycore” chips.

What’s a manycore chip? There’s no hard definition. Basically, it’s a microprocessor with tens, hundreds, or even thousands of processor cores. It’s like multicore on fertility pills.
Intel recently hinted at this future by showing an 80-core chip, code-named Polaris. It caused a stampede of breathless coverage in the mainstream press and on technology websites. However, Polaris is strictly a prototype, not a product. Its 80 cores are relatively simple FPUs, not x86-compatible cores. Polaris is based on an experimental VLIW architecture optimized for floating-point math.

In reality, Intel is playing catch-up in this race. Other companies have already produced manycore processors with hundreds or thousands of cores. I’m talking about finished designs in actual production, not lab experiments. Manycore processors are running today in real-world applications, such as base stations for wireless networks.
Nevertheless, Polaris is an important star to steer by. The reason: Intel has another project to develop a low-power x86 core for ultramobile PCs and embedded systems. This core will probably consume less than one watt. Intel could use it to build manycore processors for desktops, notebooks, and servers, too. Such processors could have 100 or more cores without a meltdown.

Of course, manycore processors don’t solve the problem of writing parallel-processing software that usefully exploits so many cores. Manycore chips might also reveal software bugs that bite only when running numerous threads (see last month’s column). But for CPU architects, there’s little choice. If multicore processors reach a dead end, as high-frequency single-core processors did, then manycore processors might be the only alternative.